On Wednesday 05 December 2007 08:07, Charles Lindsey wrote: > On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 18:10:37 -0000, Jim Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Charles Lindsey wrote: > >> But it has no business whatsoever making normative statements about > >> what verifiers are to do, so wording of the form "Verifiers MUST" is > >> quite out pf place - that is BCP material. > > > > Somehow, we need to tell verifiers what they need to do in order to > > implement this specification. Nobody is saying that verifiers MUST > > implement SSP at all, but rather that if they want to implement SSP, > > this is how they MUST do it. Of course, verifiers are free to implement > > some other SSP-like thing, even one that acts on SSP records, but I feel > > we need to provide some precision in the thing we're calling SSP. > > Then do not use "MUST" language when speaking of verifiers. Or, > alternatively, include wording of the form: > > "This document describes processes for what verifiers are expected to do > in order to achieve what the signers intend. > > But these descriptions are not Normative since there is no compulsion on > verifiers to follow those processes exactly as described, or even at all. > Therefore, use of the terms "MUST" and "SHOULD" in these descriptions > merely indicate the steps verifiers need to take if they want to claim > adherence to the particular set of processes described here." > > That essentially modifies the interpretations given in RFC 2119 (and 2119 > already implies that such modifications are appropriate in non-normative > contexts). > > There may be better ways to express all this.
How would doing this work change what verifiers do after the RFC is deployed? Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
