Just to be clear here, I don't want to delay DKIM-BASE either. Nor do I want us to waste time trying to fit our design to fit the publication scheme for PROPOSED. We want to take the spec to DRAFT standard so we have a chance to refactor the documents so that we have all the parts relating to the key record in one place and all the parts relating to the policy record format in one place.
I think that we can make the design of POLICY straightforward enough that we can have one document for both. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hector Santos > Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 3:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: New SSP Requirement - Body > Truncation Limits > > Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > > >> Hector Santos wrote: > > > >> I was thinking it might make sense to allow the SSP DOMAIN > to define > >> a policy attribute in its SSP record which exposes the expectation > >> for body truncations. > > > > I agree that this should be a capability, but I disagree > > with extending the policy specification. > > > > The rules of DKIM mean that any information of this type must go > > into the key records. If a verifier finds a valid, trusted > DKIM > signature the policy record would not normally be read. > > Even better. My only reason for suggesting SSP was because I > didn't want to further delay DKIM-BASE. But Yes, definitely, > I agree with you. The consideration should be (would be more > appropriate) for the key record. > > > So if the feature is to be supported the only place to put it > > is in the key record as a key signing constraint. > > +1. > > > --- > HLS > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
