> (2) Provide replacement text. > > (i) Dave Crocker provided the following replacement text: > > "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."
I'll repeat that my very strong preference is what's above. > Dave thinks that Russ' opinion is wrong [2]. > > Comment: I could not use that to argue against the DISCUSS as it would not > be viewed as a substantive comment. Well, it certainly *is* a substantive comment, but put it in perspective. "Dave thinks Russ is wrong," is not enough to have Russ clear his DISCUSS ballot. "The working group considered Russ's comments, and its consensus is that he's wrong," may well be a part of convincing him to clear. I don't think it's a secondary argument, to be held back because the "primary" argument is more compelling. I think it's an important adjunct to *any* argument, to say that the WG as a whole is behind what's being said. > Could the working group please provide feedback to help resolve this last > issue? I'm not sure what "this last issue" is, because the last thing you mention is a comment by John that doesn't raise an issue. But assuming that's what you want comments on: > John Klensin mentioned [14] that "If a primary goal is to mention > (advertise?) DKIM, then it it probably better to use Dave's text (despite my > concerns and Ned's) and be done with it". I think a primary goal is to make implementors aware of the fact that modifications can affect digital signatures, in general terms. Dave's text does that, and gives references to some of the most common signature mechanisms that MSAs are likely to encounter. So I repeat that I think Dave's text is appropriate, and also appropriately concise. I think John's text is too much, and doesn't add enough extra benefit. That paragraph was, indeed, meant as a simple "there be dragons" statement, and I strongly support leaving it simple. Barry _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
