[ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description
mike at mtcc.com
Thu Aug 10 07:21:02 PDT 2006
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 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
>> 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?)
Apologies to Frank if I've missed this thus far -- I'm still wading through
this morning's email and on barely the first cup of coffee...
More information about the ietf-dkim