Subject: [ietf-dkim] Section 6 rewording

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 15:33:11 -0700

First, sorry I missed the Jabber meeting this morning.  I read the
transcript, and it looks like it was a good meeting.

I noticed in the 4th paragraph of section 6, the word "otherwise" seems
to have crept in between -02 and -03a.  The implication seems to be
that, as soon as good signature is found, the verifier is all done. 
There are good reasons why the verifier might want to verify multiple
signatures, if present.  For example, it might not know which signing
identities are significant to the recipient for acting on the message.

>From the jabber chat, it appears this wasn't what was intended in any case.

-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:38:02 -0700

>>From the jabber chat, it appears this wasn't what was intended in any case.
Jim --

The intent is to move the outer loop to its own indent level to
make that explicit.

       Mike

---

From: Arvel Hathcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 23:13:34 -0500

> identities are significant to the recipient for acting on the message.

That's true and is why our lib will verify all signatures (up to like 10 
or some user configurable number to prevent a DoS).  We communicate each 
result in Auth-res.

BTW:  Sorry for missing the Jabbers recently but I'm finally on vacation 
in Alaska!  I've read the transcripts and have no objections to any of 
the proposed changes.

-- 
Arvel

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 13:44:08 +0100

> in Alaska!  I've read the transcripts and have no objections to any of 

Actually, it'd be good for us as chairs, if other people who'd not taken
part in the jabbering could check over the logs and let us know, on or
off list, if they find any problems or if they mostly agree with what
they find,

Ta,
Stephen.