I think we have to weaken it since it is not an interoperability issue. If I choose to give you information I cannot regulate the use you make of it (absent DRM).
A MUST NOT has a particular meaning for us, in particular when auditing code. I cannot create a test suite that audits this particular MUST NOT. I cannot enforce it in a layered API without going to extraordinary and unnatural lengths. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:58 AM > To: ietf-dkim > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures > > > Well, happy new year all. > > Having looked through this, I see no consensus for this > addition/change other than perhaps to weaken the "MUST NOT" > on the "z=". Correct me if I'm wrong there. > > Was there a suggestion for new text for the "z=" that we can > consider? (Sorry if I missed it.) > > Thanks, > Stephen. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
