Re: [yam] Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with DISCUSS)

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Fri, 26 August 2011 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.com>
X-Original-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yam@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4274921F8C9E for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:26:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -111.122
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-111.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zcp5xJtr7YYM for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8700221F8C89 for <yam@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 09:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 26123 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2011 16:27:24 -0000
Received: from gal.iecc.com (64.57.183.53) by mail2.iecc.com with SMTP; 26 Aug 2011 16:27:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 32872 invoked from network); 26 Aug 2011 16:27:24 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 26 Aug 2011 16:27:24 -0000
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:27:02 -0000
Message-ID: <20110826162702.30483.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: yam@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVALbJBxfHOUb1Vj4bLHMUVN6TeOVTA4vmFyg_AKqd71RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: barryleiba@computer.org
Subject: Re: [yam] Russ Housley's Discuss on draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: yam@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Yet Another Mail working group discussion list <yam.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yam>
List-Post: <mailto:yam@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam>, <mailto:yam-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 16:26:09 -0000

>>        "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.

Same here, better than my current text.

R's,
John