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

[Michael Thomas]

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
>
>> 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:-)

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.

       Mike