On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 1:13 PM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's right. Ed25519 signatures are often reported as an error rather > than > ignored, which is a reason to stop them. Instead, the RFC could have > stated > that signers MUST implement and verifiers MUST report the lack of the new > signature as an error. Senders jump through hoops to avoid errors in > aggregate > reports. > Reporting an unknown key type as an error deviates from a MUST in RFC 6376. Shouldn't we seek to drive broken implementations into good behavior rather than altering standards to accommodate them? -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
