ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st partyvalid signatures.

2006-08-11 06:08:35
Stephen Farrell:
Those are not in conflict. As I read it the requirement states that
an SSP lookup MUST NOT be REQUIRED (== is OPTIONAL) when a valid
first party signature is present.

I guess rephrasing it as follows might make you happier:

    The Protocol MAY be invoked when a valid first party signature
    is present.

       [INFORMATIVE NOTE: The expectation is that most implementations
       will not (always) invoke the protocol in this case.]

IMO those are equivalent, so I don't mind which gets used. Maybe
others prefer one over the other or don't agree about equivalence?

I prefer the "must not be required" form. I know that it implies
"may perform SSP lookup", but the latter form can more easily be
lobbied into a stronger recommendation for SSP lookup, which is
definitely not what I want.

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

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