> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:39 PM > To: J D Falk > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Srsly. > > JD, > > 1. Yes, folks often forget that the premise to a standard is "IF you > embrace > this standard, THEN various normative assertions apply. IF you do not, > then > they do not." So all the musting and shoulding are strictly in the > context of > those who have chosen to adopt the specification.
I still think there's a strong likelihood that receivers will choose to use SSP selectively, i.e. to apply it only if their first level reputation check on an existing signature does not meet their threshold. In this case, the MUST is still ambiguous... they may have embraced the standard for certain cases but not for others. The spec seems to imply, by using MUST in certain cases, that it is an all or nothing proposition. > > 2. Your second point says that there should be an 'applicability > statement' > for SSP, to clarify the scenarios in which it makes sense to use and the > ones > it does not. This would be a very useful addition. Ellen > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
