[ietf-dkim] Revised proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures

[Michael Thomas]

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 9:16 AM -0700 4/4/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
> 
>> I have no idea why this merits even a SHOULD let alone a REQUIRED.
> 
> 
> For interoperability. The current document says that it does not say 
> what multiple signatures mean, nor does it give a standard way for a 
> signer to attach multiple signatures to a message.

Do you consider this an adequate reply to all of the questions I asked?

		Mike