ietf-smime
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Modifications to ESS document

1997-12-18 17:07:55
I agree that the change is not needed.  It was simply proposed as a way
to make things simplier.  The possible implication that John has makes
me want to retract this suggestion and quickly.

-----Original Message-----
From: jsp(_at_)jgvandyke(_dot_)com [mailto:jsp(_at_)jgvandyke(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 1997 12:58 PM
To: Russ Housley; Jim Schaad (Exchange)
Cc: Ietf-Smime (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Modifications to ESS document


All,

Jim Schaad wrote:
It might be nice from a strictly easy point of view to add a copy to
MLReciptPolicy of "all [4]" to make the text easier to deal with in
terms of refering to all or normal processing if this value is present
rather than refering to what to do if the value is missing.

I disagree with this proposed change because it is not needed.  If the
originator requests that "all" recipients should return a signed receipt
and
the MLA's MLReceiptPolicy policy is missing, then the net effect is that
all
recipients should return signed receipts.  In general, if the
MLReceiptPolicy is missing then the originator's receipt request is
honored.
Therefore, there is no need to add "all" or "normal" to MLReceiptPolicy.


Furthermore, I believe that the addition of "all" to MLReceiptPolicy
could
mislead people to believe that when the MLReceiptPolicy is "all" and the
originator has not requested a signed receipt, then the MLReceiptPolicy
"all" takes precedence over the originator's action of not requesting a
signed receipt.  This would be a bad result because the originator would
not
expect (or want) any signed receipts and could be bombarded with signed
receipts from every mail list recipient.

================================
John Pawling   
jsp(_at_)jgvandyke(_dot_)com                             
J.G. Van Dyke & Associates, Inc.           
================================



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