[ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description
stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Thu Aug 10 07:05:50 PDT 2006
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
> was that the general sentiment of the wg would have favored (9) in
> 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:-)
More information about the ietf-dkim