On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 9:35 AM Scott Kitterman <ietf-d...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> Currently RFC 6376 says, "Signatures MAY be considered invalid". I think > the practical effect as described in protocol terms would be to change the > MAY to SHOULD under X conditions and SHOULD NOT under !X conditions. Not > that I'd expect to see this appear in a protocol document (maybe some kind > of applicability statement). > Beyond this SHOULD, I think we need to consider whether the caller needs to be told specifically when a failure occurs for this reason. Right now an implementation might return just a PERMFAIL without noting that it's because of "x=" versus the signature failing for some other reason. Should the caller be given this extra detail to enhance the decision tree, or will this just complicate things? I think, for instance, libopendkim does identify the reason for the failure, but I'm not sure whether any consumers of that API make use of that detail beyond maybe logging it. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
