On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:31:25 -0000, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
<pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Agree entirely. In fact, it is a probably breach o RFC 2119 to use MUST
wording in such ways.
I just want to point out that similar arguments also apply to the "MUST
sign the From header" case.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html