[ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8
hsantos at santronics.com
Wed Aug 9 09:29:40 PDT 2006
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie>
To: "Damon" <deepvoice at gmail.com>
Cc: "DKIM List" <ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Clarification: Requirement #8
> Damon wrote:
> > 8. The Protocol is not required to publish a Practice of any/all
> > unreleated third parties that MUST NOT sign on the domain
> > holder's behalf.
> > [INFORMATIVE NOTE: this is essentially saying that the
> > protocol doesn't have to concern itself with being a
> > blacklist repository.]
> > Spelling issue: unreleated = unrelated
> > also
> > This might be a semantics issue but, does this mean that, while it is
> > not required, it is still an option to be able to publish who MUST NOT
> > sign?
> As I read it, it says that the (SSP) protocol MUST NOT have that
> feature. Some other protocol might.
"The protocol is not required...."
to me, means it is optional. The informative note seems to connotate this
"doesn't have to concern itself" which mean I could if I wanted to.
Maybe changing to:
"The protocols does not need.."
or just remove #8 altogether. Don't need to mention it,
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
More information about the ietf-dkim