ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Alternative text for semantics of multiple signatures

2006-04-05 09:37:22
> 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..."

Yes. With that change and the previous "SHOULD" becoming "should" as discussed by Stephen and Mike I think this text is very good.

--
Arvel



_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>