Sorry folks, this was a very last minute deletion on my part. The
version that
Frank has is correct. Suffice it to say, my read of the working group
consensus
was that the general sentiment of the wg would have favored (9) in
Stephen's,
but I'm not sure it belonged in the requirements draft at this time, so
I erred
on less controversy.
Mike
Frank Ellermann wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
don't we currently have a requirement in 5.3 that says:
9. [PROVISIONAL] A signature that is not on behalf of the
RFC2822.From MUST NOT be construed as suspicious for the
purposes of The Protocol.
In the draft I read 5.3 (9) is completely different. Which
version are you looking at ? The "requirements-00" apparently
did not make it yet to the tools server and the DKIM page, to
the tracker, or the "official" drafts directory.
The copy I read has date 2006-08-08, and in that version the
word "suspicious" appears only in section 6.1.
If that were to gain consensus (as I believe it ought, at
least since the alternative makes no cryptographic sense to
me) then would there still be a problem with Resent-* cases?
No more problem with any always-signed-Resent-cases. But that
eliminates 5.5 in the DSAP draft with a MUST NOT.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html