Hi!
On 5/26/26 22:30, Vittorio wrote:
the O(1) I referenced is per hop relative to chain length,
verification cost at each hop does not depend on the number of
previous hops.
Your rollback to i=1 via merged rulesets is efficient for reaching the
original, but when verification fails it does not localise which hop
introduced the problem. Hop-by-hop verification does: each hop
verifies its predecessor before signing, so a dishonest node is
identified at the point of failure.
That's right and a trade-off for verifiers to make. If after a while we
see that end-to-end failures are rare, but in those cases we want to
have precise attribution, of course a verifier could be implemented
two-step: First the optimized end-to-end verification. If that succeeds,
well, if not, re-verify hop-by-hop (a little slower).
But then, I'd believe that in most settings, verifying hop-by-hop to
begin with will be fast enough despite the O(n*m) worst case complexity
(time).
On null recipes and attachment removal, Allen Robinson stated in this
list that null recipes reintroduce trust and are a strong reason not
to support them. If null recipe is now the recommended approach for
antivirus attachment removal, that should be made explicit, accepting
that DKIM2-extended provides no reconstruction of the removed content
for that class of modification.
I think null recipes have not been removed from the draft, so they're
still in the game even if there's an opinion to not support them at all.
On non-monotone recipes your April 16 review stated that non-monotone
recipes make streaming with bounded memory impossible. I cited that
observation in my draft. I note you have not addressed it in your reply.
My basis is the current "official" WG draft. The requirement for copy
instructions to be strictly monotone is still in there.
Hence I don't see a need to address an issue with a hypothetical change
in the draft.
Hannah.
--
Hannah Stern
Software Developer
Mail Transfer Development
1&1 Mail & Media Development & Technology GmbH | | |
Phone: +49 721 91374-4519
E-Mail: [email protected] | Web: www.mail-and-media.com www.gmx.net
www.web.de www.mail.com www.united-internet-media.de
Hauptsitz Montabaur, Amtsgericht Montabaur, HRB 5452
Geschäftsführer: Alexander Charles, Dr. Michael Hagenau, Thomas Ludwig, Dr.
Verena Patzelt
Member of United Internet
Diese E-Mail kann vertrauliche und/oder gesetzlich geschützte Informationen
enthalten. Wenn Sie nicht der bestimmungsgemäße Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail
irrtümlich erhalten haben, unterrichten Sie bitte den Absender und vernichten
Sie diese E-Mail. Anderen als dem bestimmungsgemäßen Adressaten ist untersagt,
diese E-Mail zu speichern, weiterzuleiten oder ihren Inhalt auf welche Weise
auch immer zu verwenden.
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are
not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that saving,
distribution or use of the content of this e-mail in any way is prohibited. If
you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the
e-mail.
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
