S Moonesamy wrote:
At 16:53 22-08-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
This is a pretty classic case of avoiding a problematic Discuss,
through an easy expedient.
If YAM WG participants view it as such a case, they can voice their
concern.
At 16:52 22-08-2011, Ned Freed wrote:
See above - 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.
Ok.
Dave suggested the following text:
"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"
As an individual comment, the "that consider ..." could be dropped as
the text mentions that validity can affect message handling.
Dave and Ned are in favor of including some text and Pete is for
removal. I would appreciate some more feedback.
I am against removing the text, as it will be a disservice to the
community. I am Ok with weakening it and possibly adding examples.
Dave's suggestion looks good to me.
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
