I think we have to weaken it since it is not an interoperability issue. If I
choose to give you information I cannot regulate the use you make of it (absent
DRM).
A MUST NOT has a particular meaning for us, in particular when auditing code. I
cannot create a test suite that audits this particular MUST NOT. I cannot
enforce it in a layered API without going to extraordinary and unnatural
lengths.
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen
Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:58 AM
To: ietf-dkim
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures
Well, happy new year all.
Having looked through this, I see no consensus for this
addition/change other than perhaps to weaken the "MUST NOT"
on the "z=". Correct me if I'm wrong there.
Was there a suggestion for new text for the "z=" that we can
consider? (Sorry if I missed it.)
Thanks,
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html