[Subject line changed with item number] Eliot Lear wrote: > Arvel Hathcock wrote: > >>> The SSP specification needs to be modified to remove all directions >>> for recipient actions, instead limiting itself to statements about the >>> actions of a potential signer. >>> >> This is a manifestation of the thinking that providing guidance to a >> receiver about what you might like to see happen is a violation of >> some Internet taboo. I just don't see a problem here. >> > > I'd have to agree. I thought the point of SSP was for the sender to > provide the receiver on guidance on what it would like done with > messages that are believed to be inauthentic. While I understand Dave's > concern about organizations communicating policy, if this is a start, so > be it. It's very constrained. >
Agree with Eliot and Arvel (disagree with issue 1520). For those that are looking for a precedent, I'd like to point to RFC 2597 (Assured Forwarding PHB Group) as an example of where there is a requirement on the recipient, in this case of a packet, to handle it in a particular way. From Section 2: "Within an AF class, a DS node MUST NOT forward an IP packet with smaller probability..." In any case, the SSP draft is nowhere near as normative as this. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
