[ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures
pbaker at verisign.com
Wed Jan 3 21:31:25 PST 2007
I think we have to weaken it since it is not an interoperability issue. If I choose to give you information I cannot regulate the use you make of it (absent DRM).
A MUST NOT has a particular meaning for us, in particular when auditing code. I cannot create a test suite that audits this particular MUST NOT. I cannot enforce it in a layered API without going to extraordinary and unnatural lengths.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org
> [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:58 AM
> To: ietf-dkim
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures
> Well, happy new year all.
> Having looked through this, I see no consensus for this
> addition/change other than perhaps to weaken the "MUST NOT"
> on the "z=". Correct me if I'm wrong there.
> Was there a suggestion for new text for the "z=" that we can
> consider? (Sorry if I missed it.)
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
More information about the ietf-dkim