[ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-03 submitted
barryleiba at computer.org
Sun Feb 27 10:42:13 PST 2011
>> Therefore, a verifier SHOULD NOT validate a message that is not
>> compliant with [RFC5322, RFC2045 and RFC2047] specifications.
>>IMHO, it is somewhat vague. That SHOULD-NOT could be "promoted" to a
>>MUST-NOT for a finite number of specific features --to be explicitly
>>listed for readers' convenience.
> I'm pretty sure we already had this argument, and SHOULD NOT was the
> rough consensus.
The chairs are pretty sure that's correct.
Barry, as chair
More information about the ietf-dkim