> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Hector Santos > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 8:38 PM > To: Pete Resnick > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 8bit downgrades > > 100%? That is extreme.
...but correct. > Such conversion is outside the scope of DKIM; the actual > message SHOULD be converted to 7-bit MIME by an MUA or MSA > prior to presentation to the DKIM I read that (in the context of the paragraph containing it, of course) to mean the particular selection of a conversion method is out of scope for DKIM. But that does not mean the issue of whether or not conversion is necessary or advisable is also out of scope. If it's okay for us to discuss things like header field reordering and spacing changes that might affect validation of DKIM signatures, it certainly seems to me that this is a valid topic as well. > So I don't even know why we are talking about this. The presented argument, which comes from an IETF outsider involved with MTA development, is whether or not that SHOULD is worthy of a MUST because failing to do it in the vast majority of cases will result in a downgrade somewhere on the path that will invalidate the signature. The question, then, is why we didn't do MUST in the first place. It's a perfectly legitimate question. The answer is twofold: One, explain what SHOULD and MUST really mean, especially in context. Two, list the options (downgrade and sign, don't downgrade and sign, don't sign) and the effects of each. Providing a solid and helpful answer, rather than a dismissive or hostile one, promotes understanding from people that weren't involved, who are the ones that get to implement and deploy what we've specified. That's certainly my preference. -MSK _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
