[ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description
mike at mtcc.com
Thu Aug 10 07:13:52 PDT 2006
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 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:-)
Perhaps what would be worthwhile here is to explicitly draw out
the list/resent scenario itself and say why it's a use case that we ought
not outlaw, and from whence a requirement is derived.
More information about the ietf-dkim