Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 3:10 PM -0700 4/4/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
I copied this from Paul's original. I'm good either way, though
SHOULD seems more appropriate now.
The MUST NOT was there in the earlier proposal because the association
between p= and the headers was by hash values. This proposal removes
that, and MUST NOT is not needed. If we use "SHOULD NOT", we need to say
when it is OK to do it anyway. Proposal: "To avoid deleting information
that might be valuable to the recipient, signers SHOULD NOT remove..."
Sounds good to me -- I was thinking of adding some text along the
"forensics" lines to reinforce that even bad signatures may be
useful to humans/stats collectors, etc.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to