On Oct 18, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Hello all, > > Can I please get a reading of WG consensus on the issue of sending multiple > reports for a multiply-signed message? This is the only remaining issue > before doing a second (perhaps short) WGLC on > draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report and then preparing to send it to the IESG. > There were other editorial issues, mostly from me, that don’t appear to be > contentious since nobody else has commented on them, so that’s where we’re at. > > I know John is in favour of this (it was his idea), and it gets a +1 from me > as participant since all of the syntax-related solutions we’ve considered > thus far have substantial drawbacks. Hilda had some reservations on the > grounds that report generators might not like it much. I’d like to see more > opinions registered.
Multiple reports for multiple failed signatures seems the least bad solution. +1 from me. Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
