[ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description

[Stephen Farrell]

Michael Thomas wrote:
> Sorry folks, this was a very last minute deletion on my part. The 
> version that
> Frank has is correct. 

Nope. Its my fault for not checking.

 > Suffice it to say, my read of the working group
> consensus
> was that the general sentiment of the wg would have favored (9) in 
> Stephen's,
> but I'm not sure it belonged in the requirements draft at this time, so 
> I erred
> on less controversy.

Fair enough. So I guess that means that maybe including Frank's
suggested requirement text would be a good idea.

As he said it:

    "The protocol" MUST be either compatible with "resent mail",
    independent of the signing practices of a resending service,
    or explicitly explain why and when that's expected to fail.

In non-chair mode: either that, or the no-longer-there-#9, seem
not bad to me, in terms of making non-existent anti-signatures a
non-requirement. (Is that record number of negatives:-)

S.