ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

[ietf-dkim] SHOULD vs MUST for non-existent domain errors

2008-07-10 14:11:08

As I was making a fresh pass on the ssp-04 draft, I noticed a
discrepancy that I can't reconstruct a rationale for. 

Before I post it as an issue, I wanted to see whether anyone else can
recall the reasoning. 

In the middle of 4.3, there's the paragraph that starts "If the domain
does exist, the verifier MAY make more extensive checks...". In the last
sentence of that paragraph, it says "If those checks indicate that the
Author domain does not exist for mail ... the verifier SHOULD terminate
with an error...". 

My question is why that final SHOULD is not a MUST. Granted that the
additional checks are optional, but once the verifier has the
information that the domain does not exist for mail why is reporting
that fact back as an out-of-scope error optional? 

Ellen


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

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