Subject: [ietf-dkim] A/R Trust Services

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2007 20:24:45 -0500

The recent new bombardment of A/R considerations is undermining SSP 
efforts.  I hope this note serves as food for thought for anyone that is 
really focus on a A/R.

I think SSP is not about Reputation and Accreditation (A/R).

But this is not a note on what SSP is but rather how A/R proponents 
SHOULD support SSP, not necessarily within its product offerings, but 
rather in helping to lowering the adoption barriers and get more people 
into the market to use DKIM.

Like many other product vendors here, A/R concepts is already part of 
the package.  It is just a layer among other things.

We are eager to add DKIM but not without public domain, IETF standard 
policy protocol augmenting DKIM to help address the DKIM base protocol 
consistency issues which A/R systems does not address and doesn't have too.

It is to benefit of any A/R vendor or would be vendor that has already 
has DKIM or is planning to use DKIM, to endorse SSP as a fall back and 
default solution to address some really basic DKIM protocol usage 
exploits that are completely external to any ideas regarding reputation.

So I am throwing these recommendations from a technical sales standpoint:

  1) A/R systems should endorse public domain IETF standards
     DKIM/SSP efforts, not hinder it.

  2) A/R systems should leverage the benefits of DKIM/SSP, and
     even offer an alternative discovery process.

  3) A/R systems should come together with some common protocol
     to offer a different discovery process for A/R information.
     This part is highly critical if DKIM is to become a wide
     used general mechanism in the network.

The last thing we want, because we been through this before and do not 
want to go this again, is to add DKIM support with a "Batteries 
Required" concept which means that we MUST document that DKIM will not 
work unless the customer subscribes to a external non-IETF related 
protocol A/R service bureau.

DKIM must be able to offer some basic functional benefit and DKIM-BASE 
does with 1st party valid signatures.

But DKIM-BASE is highly exploitable without some basic protocol 
consistency wrapper that I believe SSP does offers.

That is why I am so confident about it. I truly believe it will help. 
But this does not suggest nor eliminate the idea for any additional 
white/black "Trust" concept either local or 3rd party.

I just think it would be unfortunate if we lock in DKIM-base with 3rd 
party A/R concepts.  I think it will be a recipe for low general acceptance.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html