agreed. Is this better?
NEW: If there are
NEW: multiple query mechanisms listed, the choice of query mechanism
NEW: MUST NOT change the interpretation of the signature. An
NEW: implementation MAY use recognized query mechanisms in any
NEW: order.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
william(at)elan.net wrote:
>
> On Thu, 18 May 2006, John Levine wrote:
>
>>> NEW: If there are
>>> NEW: multiple query mechanisms listed, the choice of query mechanism
>>> NEW: MUST NOT change the interpretation of the signature. An
>>> NEW: implementation MUST use the recognized query mechanisms in the
>>> NEW: order presented.
>>
>> I can live with either of these sentences, but they don't make sense
>> togther. If all of the mechanisms will give you the same answer, why
>> shouldn't I be allowed to send out all the queries at once and take
>> the one the comes back first? Or if new ones are supersets of old
>> ones, prefer the more informative one?
>
> All mechanisms must allow you to actually verify the signature crypto,
> but I think the point is that it might not give you the same answer if
> one of the mechanisms is more advanced. What would be expected is
> that those systems that are using newer versions of software will
> know how to use these new mechanisms whilte older systems will just
> ignore them and use the ones they know about. As to doing queries
> in parallel - if you know two mechanisms give you the same answer
> (i.e. one is not more advanced or its advanced features are not
> used by particular implimentation), then sure, go ahead.
>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
