Were other comments getting fixed and therefore a new draft will be
produced (today preferably) that will address this DISCUSS, or is this
the only thing and I should put in an RFC Editor note?
pr
On 8/24/11 1:46 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
Hi Russ,
At 07:06 24-08-2011, Russ Housley wrote:
As Dave well knows, the presence of an invalid signature is different
than no signature at all. The technical community keeps telling
implementors that they are not really different, but folks that writ
code seem to think otherwise. The proposed text does not say
anything about the signature validity, At a minimum, is should say
"...of a valid signature."
Dave suggested the following (new) text as a replacement:
"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 valid signature."
The only change from the previous text is the last line.
The only comment received from the YAM WG has been from Dave. Based
on both comments, I think we have replacement text that all parties
can live with. I'll consider this DISCUSS as addressed.
Thanks,
S. Moonesamy
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
