Re: [apps-discuss] Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-05: (with DISCUSS)

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,
At 19:54 04-08-2014, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>x.7.20 is for the situation where the message contained no valid 
>signature at all.  In terms of RFC 7001, it could be used for "none" 
>(the message wasn't signed), "fail" (there was a valid signature but 
>it failed to verify), "policy" (there was a valid signature but, for 
>example, it didn't cover some header field the verifier requires to 
>be covered per local policy; for example, there's at least one 
>verifier implementation that considers Subject mandatory), "neutral" 
>(there was a signature, but it was syntactically invalid), or 
>"permerror" (there was a signature, but the public key to which it 
>referred was malformed, or it didn't cover the From field as 
>required by RFC 6376).

This is an individual comment.

I read Section 3.1 of draft-ietf-appsawg-email-auth-codes-06 again 
and I found it a little confusing.  The sample text says: "No valid 
DKIM signature found".  This is where I read Section 6.1 of RFC 6376 
to find out what is valid.  Note that there is only one DKIM 
verification algorithm.  The change between -05 and -06 is the 
emphasis on the term "acceptable" and introduces "basic DKIM 
verification algorithm".  The definitions (a) and (b) defines 
"acceptable" and the code says "anything that is not that".

My quick suggestion would be to change "valid" to "acceptable" in the 
"Sample Text" and avoid introducing "basic algorithm" in (a) and (b).

Regards,
S. Moonesamy