On 8/22/2011 5:50 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
On 8/22/11 6:52 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
I think pointing out the possibility of client signatures is important and the
text should be retained, but without the compliance language. I think deleting
it weakens the document and therefore I object to its total removal. That
said, I can live with it going if not removing it will prevent the move to
full standard.
So, I hadn't considered the possibility of simply weakening the current language
so it's strictly explanatory and had no 2119 language.
Indeed, it doesn't make much sense to have normative language for something that
is merely highlighting an issue and encouraging attention to it.
Perhaps:
Message modification can affect the validity of an existing message
signature, such as by DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880], and can render the
signature invalid. This, in turn, can affect message handling by later
receivers, such as filtering engines that consider the presence or absence
of a signature.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
