Doug, The protocol we are discussing is DKIM, although another protocol might find SSP useful it's out of scope for this discussion. Thanks,
Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications, Inc. Alpharetta GA 404-847-6397 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Otis Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 4:41 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New issue: Requirement #10 - Invoking SSP -Suggestion to Remove this. On Sep 26, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Wietse Venema wrote: > Michael Thomas: >> Arvel Hathcock wrote: >> >>>> 10. The Protocol MUST NOT be required to be invoked if a >>>> valid first party signature is found. >>> >>> Hector, doesn_t it say exactly what you want it to say? It says >>> that the protocol must not require invocation when valid first >>> party signatures are found. It doesn't say "THOU SHALT NOT INVOKE >>> THE PROTOCOL". I see nothing that needs to be changed. >> >> Exactly. > > I agree. Are these policies to be used in only one protocol, or might there be multiple protocols that make use of these policy records? -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
