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

[Stephen Farrell]

Michael Thomas wrote:
>> 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.

Ah. I thought most of that was in his email, but sure - having the
use case in the I-D makes it easier to see what the requirement's
for. (Frank - want to write it so's Mike can cut'n'paste if the
WG adopts this?)

S.