Re: [ietf-dkim] Fwd: [Lurk] Another outside the "box" use case: DKIM

2016-04-21 Thread Dave Crocker
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

Re: [ietf-dkim] Fwd: [Lurk] Another outside the "box" use case: DKIM

2016-04-21 Thread Dave Crocker
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

[ietf-dkim] Fwd: [Lurk] Another outside the "box" use case: DKIM

2016-03-02 Thread Stephen Farrell
(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