On 8/23/11 3:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Dave suggested the following text:
"Message modification can affect the validity of an existing message
signature, such as by DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880], and can render the
signature invalid. This, in turn, can affect message handling by
later
receivers, such as filtering engines that consider the presence
or absence
of a signature"
As an individual comment, the "that consider ..." could be dropped as
the text mentions that validity can affect message handling.
Dave and Ned are in favor of including some text and Pete is for
removal. I would appreciate some more feedback.
I am against removing the text, as it will be a disservice to the
community. I am Ok with weakening it and possibly adding examples.
Dave's suggestion looks good to me.
And to be clear: I am not "for removal". I am for removal *of the
current text*, because I think it is reasonable to complain about new
requirements language in something moving from Draft Standard to
Standard. But I do not object to Dave's suggested language, and I think
some kind of language is probably useful.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
