[ietf-dkim] Re: New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP - Suggestion t

Stephen Farrell wrote:
 
> A "MUST NOT be required" is the same as a MAY. Nothing
> militant there at all IMO.
It's misleading.  What "we" want is that no DKIM signer or
verifier is forced to support SSP at all.  As soon as they
(try to) support SSP they're supposed to get it right, and
if that requires "check SSP for signature", then they do
that.

Frank


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