Hector,
How about:
" 10. The Protocol MUST NOT be required to be invoked if a valid
first party signature *and* valid first party policy is found."
I believe that the _MUST NOT_ was put in so that implementers do not
continue to process even though a valid sig and policy are found and
this was the way to enforce it. Taking it out would open up a whole
new problem with "whose policy is most valid?" etc. My vote is for
leaving it in but changing the wording to address the issue you
brought up.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
Now that I think about it for one second longer... isn't it
considered a "valid first party sig" because of policy? Wouldn't a
broken policy invalidate the first party sig?
Maybe we do not have to change this at all.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html