On 4/21/2016 11:50 AM, John Levine wrote:
> The reason DKIM doesn't have the LURK problem is that the key issuer
> directly controls the verification key with no intermediary doing
> certification.
The text I was commenting on cited an issue with handing out "my private
key". That DKIM might
On 3/2/2016 1:35 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> LURK is an IETF mailing list that's discussing developing a
> solution to the "offload TLS without giving the CDN my private
> key" problem.
The premise seems to be that there is a single private key.
DKIM permits an arbitrary of private keys to be
(Not sure if this list is still active, but FYI...)
LURK is an IETF mailing list that's discussing developing a
solution to the "offload TLS without giving the CDN my private
key" problem. Right now, people are trying to figure out if,
as seems likely, the above is the only use case that'll be