Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains

Jim Fenton <fenton@cisco.com> Fri, 08 December 2006 18:37 UTC

Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gskaj-0003Wj-DO for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:37:01 -0500
Received: from sb7.songbird.com ([208.184.79.137]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gskad-0006wK-SP for ietf-dkim-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:37:01 -0500
Received: from sb7.songbird.com (sb7.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kB8IX4Oe000826; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:33:05 -0800
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com (sj-iport-5.cisco.com [171.68.10.87]) by sb7.songbird.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kB8IWmQ2000805 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:32:48 -0800
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2006 10:32:33 -0800
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id kB8IWXI4025911; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:32:33 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id kB8IWWiw028178; Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:32:27 -0800
Received: from [172.26.0.122] ([10.21.120.203]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:32:27 -0800
Message-ID: <4579AFB9.10304@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:32:25 -0800
From: Jim Fenton <fenton@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Macintosh/20061025)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hector Santos <hsantos@santronics.com>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: Applicability of SSP to subdomains
References: <4553F9CA.9080705@cisco.com> <457899C7.4030202@cisco.com> <9CFCAD84-8368-4DB9-BF0B-E7B0E6A54623@mail-abuse.org> <4578EB09.6070806@cisco.com> <45790304.80709@santronics.com>
In-Reply-To: <45790304.80709@santronics.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2006 18:32:27.0385 (UTC) FILETIME=[3650AE90:01C71AF7]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1007; t=1165602753; x=1166466753; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fenton@cisco.com; z=From:=20Jim=20Fenton=20<fenton@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[ietf-dkim]=20New=20Issue=3A=20=20Applicability=20of= 20SSP=20to=20subdomains |Sender:=20; bh=ynG3P3rxpjkZUMOwsGRksg+nsy1ImSgcdQx3oBvcSEc=; b=hYijaVXOMj5Vt2y7CpVaWK8DzrMWYXlCKtCAtliO1byUewmS/SkBJPVdJJE6t/9sS5JkkiZC iaP3ATyIk6HkaOcwcVX445rVEG+UdB2ARKvSjcXfynMWyhKGInRIG4kf;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fenton@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
X-Songbird: Clean, Clean
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-SongbirdInformation: support@songbird.com for more information
X-Songbird-From: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a

Hector,

Hector Santos wrote:
> Jim Fenton wrote:
>
>> The question is simply, "should it be possible for an SSP record 
>> published by example.com to also apply to sub.example.com [for any 
>> value of sub]".  
>
> Yes, but allowance is made for the sub as well.  Isn't the specs 
> currently written as such?
draft-allman-dkim-ssp does attempt to address subdomains, but there are 
problems with its methodology that I presented at the WG meeting. I know 
you weren't there, but if you look at the slides at 
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/slides/dkim-3.pdf, especially 
slide 4, it discusses this further.

But this question is about the SSP requirements draft.  Currently the 
requirements draft is silent on this issue, and not all of the drafts 
presented at the WG meeting address propagation of SSP to subdomains, 
which is what prompts me to ask the question.  Lookup order would then 
be a secondary question if we decide that we need to address subdomains.

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