Re: [Dcrup] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04: (with COMMENT)

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 09:15:05 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Kurt Andersen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > In fact I would claim that by the definitions in Section 2.7.1 of RFC7601,
> > 
> >> "policy" is the only option.
> > 
> > Are we talking about before or after this group consigns sha1 to the ash
> > heap?
> 
> Concurrent with.
> 
> Perhaps I'm confused about the sequencing of events that we are discussing.
> 
> > If the original DKIM spec had allowed rsa-md5 and a previous
> > (hypothetical)
> > instance of DCRUP had similarly deprecated MD5, what sort of designation
> > would we expect to be recorded today for such usage?
> 
> The question's never been asked before, so I don't know how to answer
> that.  But I don't think "none" is right unless we also want to contend
> that a DKIM-Signature field with a syntax error in it also warrants a
> "none", which I don't believe is the case.
> 
> -MSK

You've convinced me "none" is not what we want.  I think that your 
hypothetical DKIM signature warrants a "permerror" and that's what we should 
use here.

Scott K