On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Barry Leiba <[email protected]> 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. > > It seems to me, SM, that that's exactly what's happening. > >> 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" > > And I think that text is good. I support changing the text to this, > and telling Russ that the WG is strongly in favour of having this in > there. (And I'm not in favour of SM's suggested change to it.) > > Having text such as this is important: > This is a common case, where something needs to progress on the > standards track, but something else has come along in the interim that > (1) does not change the existing protocol that's progressing, but (2) > implementors of the existing protocol now need to be aware of. > > We're not changing the protocol, but it's critical that anyone looking > at the new Message Submission spec be aware of its effect on > signatures. We MUST NOT remove this alert.
+1 (that means Dave modified text is OK with me) -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
