[mtcc.com alert] Re: [ietf-dkim] Revised proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures

[Michael Thomas]

Paul Hoffman wrote:
 > Revised to:
 >
 > - remove verification passthrough
 > - change the canonicalization to what is being used anyway
 > - removed the ordering requirement
 > - softened the wording about bid-down attack

It would be nice if you responded to my initial post on this subject.
But in particular:

 >     p= Earlier signatures (plain-text; REQUIRED

I have no idea why this merits even a SHOULD let alone a REQUIRED.
The rationale makes a pretty big leap from needing to have multiple
signatures to needing this new required functionality. As far as I
recall, nobody's answered why it's needed, let alone mandatory.

		Mike