Barry said exactly what I was going to say here. +1 on all points, including
the preference for Dave's text.
Ned
> > (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
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
