Re: Atom protocol and digital signatures

[James M Snell]

Don Park wrote:
> Just a few passing comments/suggestions:
> 
> 1. I think requiring signature-breaking servers to detect and remove
> invalidated signatures creates unnecessary chores as well as being a
> potential source of confusion in context of the must-ignore rule.
> 

Require no, recommend yes.

> 2. I think it might make more sense to create an extension designed to
> enhanced digital-signature support. Such an extension would include a
> 'marker' element to indicate that signatures within, if any, are likely
> damaged. A feed processing agent downstream can then use the marker to
> avoid alarming the user unnecessarily.
> 

Hmmm. I can't see how that would be any easier.

- James