Murray,

Interesting and intriguing perspective.  I like it.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall seeing such a coherent, focused and pragmatic requirements statement in this discussion, so far.

But note that what you are describing has nothing specific to mail-vet.

Really.

You are describing a generic requirement for trusted information exchange between two nodes that are possibly within a trust domain. The fact that the information is, itself, security-related might affect some choices in the design, but not in a way that is specific to mail-vet (or the fact that it is security-releated...) The other that might be a bit different is to protect a specified header field. Again, I doubt that affects design choices all that much.

So mail-vet *might* be motivating it, but it is really an independent technical requirement. It warrants an independent technical specification.

Let me repeat this: To the extent that the current specification is for a data format, rather than an end-to-end exchange service, then an effort to satisfy this requirement belongs to a separate document.

And, of course, there are *lots* of ways to satisfy it. That's a further reason to avoid burdening the current, core data spec with its details.

d/


Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
This begs the question: why bother to do the first validation; why not simply wait and let whoever would have validated the first instead validate the first?

If the only authentication method being applied at a site is DKIM or other things that don't care about the path, that works. But that's a big "if", and moreover means all consumers of authentication results data must now learn all local path-agnostic methods being used to evaluate messages.

The desire here is to secure arbitrary authentication results data between the border MTA and the consuming MUA. DKIM is one way that could be achieved, meaning the consumers need to learn one and only one message authentication scheme in order to validate that one piece of protected internal data.


--

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

Reply via email to