On Apr 5, 2006, at 9:36 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> 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.
the case of a should does not change its semantics.
if the text specifies behavior, it is being normative.
Perhaps there should also be some advice give with respect to the
maximum number of signatures verified then. There should be metric
that can be applied with respect to the potential for targeted
network amplification.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html