[ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalidsignatures.

[Wietse Venema]

Wietse Venema:
> I prefer the "must not be required" form. I know that it implies
> "may perform SSP lookup", but the latter form can more easily be
> lobbied into a stronger recommendation for SSP lookup, which is
> definitely not what I want.

Hector Santos:
> I am curious to know, from an engineering standpoint,  why it is something
> you definitely not want to see implemented?  What am I missing here?

At this stage we are talking about a minimum protocol. You are free
to implement SSP lookups that exceed the minimum protocol. However,
I would oppose recommending SSP lookup in a particularly important
scenario where now such lookup "must not be required".

	Wietse