Hi Ned,
At 12:25 24-08-2011, Ned Freed wrote:
>That's not correct. The original text was worded fairly differently, also
>referenced S/MIME, and mentioned the possibility of other signiatures.
I meant the previous replacement text that was suggested.
Ah, that makes a lot more sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
>I don't have a problem with the approach the new text takes, but I don't
>understand why the reference to S/MIME was dropped. It seems likely
>it was an unintentional omission, and if so I suggest it be restored.
The reference to S/MIME may have been dropped unintentionally. I am
copying Dave as he suggested the replacement text. I noticed the
omission. I did not ask about it as nobody raised it as an issue. I
used text from your message [1] to respond to the DISCUSS. It looks
like I misread your message; you were actually arguing for the
original text to be retained without the compliance language.
That would be fine, but the replacement text is also fine.
Would this work for you:
"Message modification can affect the validity of an existing message
signature, such as by DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880], S/MIME [RFC5751]
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."
Works for me.
Ned
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
