Michael Thomas wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
That assumes that the two are now and evermore identical. I don't
think that's
a very good assumption, which is why SHOULD above makes sense.
Can you give an example of how you think the two might differ in light
of:
If there are
multiple query mechanisms listed, the choice of query mechanism
MUST NOT change the interpretation of the signature.
That point is under discussion. It is not decided.
Yes. In particular, if different mechanisms have different types of
support for key revocation, then you can get different answers
about the signature. Does that count as a change to the interpretation
of the signature or not? Regardless, I doubt that we can insist on
exactly the same outcome regardless of mechanism.
A simple example would be two X.509 based mechanisms, one based on
CRLs and one using OCSP. No matter how you set this up, there will
almost always be a time window where the OSCP response indicates
revocation before the CRL nextUpdate. So, even with intimately
related mechanisms like these, the outcomes can differ.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html