On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Jim Fenton wrote:
At 02:31 PM 10/5/2004 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Jim Galvin wrote:
>> In the small we are talking about a signature that is valid
>> from an initiator to a responder, and then discarded by the
>> responder. It creates a new signature as an initiator for
>> the next responder.
>
>i think that accurately represents the current proposals.
>
>does anyone disagree?
Depends on what you mean by an initiator and responder. Are we
talking about MTA hop by MTA hop here?
Yes.
If so, I disagree. I feel that a signature from the original sender
(From address) is a stronger and more desirable statement than an
intermediary, so I would keep that signature around in case it still
works.
I agree, but we don't need to solve that problem. It's been done, by at
least S/MIME and PGP.
Intermediaries that modify the message should re-sign, and
perhaps delete any existing intermediary signature.
So I guess I'm thinking somewhere between "small" and "large".
Yes, probably, but that is for the working group to decide. See my
message on signature semantics.
Jim