Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:31:25 -0800

I think we have to weaken it since it is not an interoperability issue. If I choose to give you information I cannot regulate the use you make of it (absent DRM).

A MUST NOT has a particular meaning for us, in particular when auditing code. I cannot create a test suite that audits this particular MUST NOT. I cannot enforce it in a layered API without going to extraordinary and unnatural lengths.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:58 AM
> To: ietf-dkim
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures
> 
> 
> Well, happy new year all.
> 
> Having looked through this, I see no consensus for this 
> addition/change other than perhaps to weaken the "MUST NOT"
> on the "z=". Correct me if I'm wrong there.
> 
> Was there a suggestion for new text for the "z=" that we can 
> consider? (Sorry if I missed it.)
> 
> Thanks,
> Stephen.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
> 

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

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:43:52 -0000

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:31:25 -0000, Hallam-Baker, Phillip  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> I think we have to weaken it since it is not an interoperability issue.  
> If I choose to give you information I cannot regulate the use you make  
> of it (absent DRM).
>
> A MUST NOT has a particular meaning for us, in particular when auditing  
> code. I cannot create a test suite that audits this particular MUST NOT.  
> I cannot enforce it in a layered API without going to extraordinary and  
> unnatural lengths.

Agree entirely. In fact, it is a probably breach o RFC 2119 to use MUST  
wording in such ways.

I just want to point out that similar arguments also apply to the "MUST  
sign the From header" case.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html