Re: MASS/DKIM BOF Summary

[wayne <wayne@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

In <198A730C2044DE4A96749D13E167AD375A29FE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> The limited security assurances provided by S/MIME are the result of the

Did you mean DKIM here instead of S/MIME?

> limitations of DNS as a key distribution mechanism. Defining the
> interfaces to existing PKI work such as PKIX and XKMS is all that is
> required to provide the type of end-to-end security assurances and
> persistent signature guarantees that S/MIME is intended to provide.


If you didn't mean DKIM, could you please explain why S/MIME has
limited security assurances?

/me is confused



> The likelihood that DKIM will replace the S/MIME signature component
> does not however mean that S/MIME supporters should see it as a threat,
> [...]
>
> There is a potential win-win situation here, if we are prepared to look
> at the bigger picture.

Agreed.


-wayne