MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c725f1b8-658d-2151-4cfa-811fe56bafc7@bluepopcorn.net>
References: <149690083334.25644.8501543904193079634@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <CABkgnnXDN3One0FZCi63ssMVtnYv-nRRR+_-gLdMMpXzW=hYrQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL0qLwakBY+LtrkQEPBKDwCrUg_qk_ZRhexUz_D_mw+dUUo6xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <17424575.60yUzU31nn@kitterma-e6430>
 <CABkgnnWuiydrm9y7PHeUonkdpJ3fV1ybbH5uBZE0tPGHr5mw1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL0qLwaZOxjii_YHVKN1Xp_vN9w8HP0YOVeyJW1wjsaM8LtAnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL0qLwaxF6PvPtRT-qdfB8QUn_vYpYJBYS6SxcA-YH5vZC8ROw@mail.gmail.com>
 <c725f1b8-658d-2151-4cfa-811fe56bafc7@bluepopcorn.net>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 18:37:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwbGyMGDTZ6GE0zTb988dEyHmOCF26DA61FOQN5zMo6Wyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
Cc: dcrup@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113ac2d448d0960551e197b4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/0FuKQsFWrqcS1aGd-0_5MoLGdS8>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-02.txt
Precedence: list

--001a113ac2d448d0960551e197b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:

> But "verifiers ignore signatures" doesn't seem like very good normative
> language. Are they required to (MUST) or is it a strong (SHOULD) or weaker
> (MAY) suggestion?
>

Get Pete Resnick in here!

You don't need any of those things.  "Verifiers ignore SHA1 signatures"
means that's what they do if they comply with this update.  Sticking a MUST
in there doesn't change anything; anyone that wants to comply will, and
anyone who has no idea about any of this won't.

Alternatively, we could load this up with a sentence or two describing why
it's a grand idea to ignore such signatures.

-MSK

--001a113ac2d448d0960551e197b4
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:30 AM, Jim Fenton <span dir=3D"l=
tr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:fenton@bluepopcorn.net" target=3D"_blank">fenton@=
bluepopcorn.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0=
 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><span class=3D""></span>But &qu=
ot;verifiers ignore signatures&quot; doesn&#39;t seem like very good
    normative language. Are they required to (MUST) or is it a strong
    (SHOULD) or weaker (MAY) suggestion?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></d=
iv><div>Get Pete Resnick in here!<br><br></div><div>You don&#39;t need any =
of those things.=C2=A0 &quot;Verifiers ignore SHA1 signatures&quot; means t=
hat&#39;s what they do if they comply with this update.=C2=A0 Sticking a MU=
ST in there doesn&#39;t change anything; anyone that wants to comply will, =
and anyone who has no idea about any of this won&#39;t.<br><br>Alternativel=
y, we could load this up with a sentence or two describing why it&#39;s a g=
rand idea to ignore such signatures.<br><br></div><div>-MSK<br></div></div>=
</div></div>

--001a113ac2d448d0960551e197b4--