[ietf-dkim] Alternative text for semantics of multiple signatures

[Dave Crocker]

Arvel Hathcock wrote:
>  > The MUST NOT was there in the earlier proposal because the association
>  > between p= and the headers was by hash values. This proposal removes
>  > that, and MUST NOT is not needed. If we use "SHOULD NOT", we need to
>  > say when it is OK to do it anyway. Proposal: "To avoid deleting
>  > information that might be valuable to the recipient, signers SHOULD
>  > NOT remove..."
> 
> Yes.  With that change and the previous "SHOULD" becoming "should" as 
> discussed by Stephen and Mike I think this text is very good.

the case of a should does not change its semantics.

if the text specifies behavior, it is being normative.

d/

-- 

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>