-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 8:38 PM
To: Pete Resnick
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 8bit downgrades
100%? That is extreme.
...but correct.
Such conversion is outside the scope of DKIM; the actual
message SHOULD be converted to 7-bit MIME by an MUA or MSA
prior to presentation to the DKIM
I read that (in the context of the paragraph containing it, of course) to mean
the particular selection of a conversion method is out of scope for DKIM. But
that does not mean the issue of whether or not conversion is necessary or
advisable is also out of scope. If it's okay for us to discuss things like
header field reordering and spacing changes that might affect validation of
DKIM signatures, it certainly seems to me that this is a valid topic as well.
So I don't even know why we are talking about this.
The presented argument, which comes from an IETF outsider involved with MTA
development, is whether or not that SHOULD is worthy of a MUST because failing
to do it in the vast majority of cases will result in a downgrade somewhere on
the path that will invalidate the signature. The question, then, is why we
didn't do MUST in the first place. It's a perfectly legitimate question.
The answer is twofold: One, explain what SHOULD and MUST really mean,
especially in context. Two, list the options (downgrade and sign, don't
downgrade and sign, don't sign) and the effects of each.
Providing a solid and helpful answer, rather than a dismissive or hostile one,
promotes understanding from people that weren't involved, who are the ones that
get to implement and deploy what we've specified. That's certainly my
preference.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html