Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Hi Jim, > > I'm not clear on the objection here. In particular, it seems to me Barry's > proposed language lines up nicely with what you said starting "but rather". >
My point is that it's already possible for the same selector record to be used for both DK and DKIM. Just leave the "g=;" out of the key record. It's not necessary for DK in any case. > As for the statement that the result would be undefined, I'm also unclear. > Are you saying two different implementers might do two different things > because of that MAY? If that's the case, then I think we're in some trouble > because (for example) there's a MAY in the definition of "x=" that permits > two results if the signature has expired. > I have never been clear on the value of x= (especially since it says it's not intended as an anti-replay defense), but you are correct that the spec is ambiguous as to whether a signature with an expired x= is valid or not. I would lean in the direction of correcting that ambiguity, rather than creating a new one. As everyone is probably tired of hearing me say, I'm all for looking for reasons to call a signature valid rather than invalid. But there gets to be a point where it's really easy for the signer to fix the problem, and they haven't bothered to. I don't have a lot of sympathy for signers who aren't willing to do even a tiny bit of diligence to make sure that their signatures are valid. I don't think we should change the spec to accommodate them. -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
