On 8/10/06, Stephen Farrell <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
wrote:
Damon,
There are some problems with your suggested statement. (Note:
I'm not saying I'd agree with it if its fixed, but as of now
its just not ready for the WG to consider.)
Damon wrote:
> The Protocol MUST NOT be required to be invoked if a valid first party
> signature (without the 's') is found.
Ambiguous. Do you mean:
MUST NOT be invoked if any valid first party signature is found,
or,
MUST NOT be invoked if exactly one valid first party signature is
found ?
(Aside: the latter would be, IMO, silly, so I guess you didn't
mean that.)
Was just keeping with what was already there in #9 and expounding upon it.
> However, if the first party
> signature if damaged in transit
A signature or message may be changed in transit, or may be bogus,
but the verifier cannot know that - the verifier can only tell
that there is no good (first party) signature.
Ok. What happens if there is a list of authorized signing domains and
one of those signs the message... then what?
We already said that a damaged sig = no sig. We also said that a
valid signer is a valid signer.
> the Protocol MUST be invoked to
> determine if any authorized domain or third party signers have signed
> the message.
Nope. The verifier can tell if they've signed by looking and checking,
so s/have signed/have been flagged by the first party as acceptable
signers for/ or something like that.
Stealing from Phillip... aww fishpaste.. your right.
> The order in which each authorized domain or third party
> signer is validated MUST NOT be specified.
Why? Seems like a nit. And I'd probably steer clear of calling
these authorized, on the basis that the term has a lot of
ancillary baggage that we don't really want to have to explain
away. (Having said that, it is a natural word to use, but not
the best technical term;-)
I wasn't too clear myself on how best to say, if an authorized domain
sig is valid over a broken first party sig, but there are multiple
authorized sigs, it should not matter which one is used, just the
first one you check and it valid is fine.
I am not a very good wordsmythe
Regards,
Damon Sauer
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html