ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2006-08-11 13:21:30
Wietse Venema:
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.

Hector Santos:
I am curious to know, from an engineering standpoint,  why it is something
you definitely not want to see implemented?  What am I missing here?

At this stage we are talking about a minimum protocol. You are free
to implement SSP lookups that exceed the minimum protocol. However,
I would oppose recommending SSP lookup in a particularly important
scenario where now such lookup "must not be required".

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

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