Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Tue, 23 August 2011 05:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 AF49B21F8B23 for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.615
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.615 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 ln48nLk6Bqmp for <yam@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.elandsys.com (mail.elandsys.com [208.69.177.125]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8855621F8888 for <yam@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([41.136.235.242]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.elandsys.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7N552Vx032676 for <yam@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Aug 2011 22:05:07 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1314075908; bh=LjWasOzX0Q5acKW85KEZVQKhIEg=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type; b=SunkzA1l7Oixsqqgclqyjrndul8916jK2E5KXBK4YZYsxFzJHLS2TKaJCY8ga+1ub 8wR5mABz+AJ1L9uzYHQ3DVjZwQCPthsleUsk8iwFfWIOBjuTwv+0DQsIxi3hDGvZ/j LZlBfRQYgWEgmsnQnT+wO0QREgctcTwDuEXkea/U=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20110822212849.08fcabf8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:43:35 -0700
To: yam@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E52EBE4.9010700@dcrocker.net>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20110822151213.0aea6018@elandnews.com> <4E52EBE4.9010700@dcrocker.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [yam] AD DISCUSS about Section 8 of draft-ietf-yam-rfc4409bis-02 - Message Modifications
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: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 05:04:04 -0000

At 16:53 22-08-2011, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>This is a pretty classic case of avoiding a problematic Discuss, 
>through an easy expedient.

If YAM WG participants view it as such a case, they can voice their concern.

At 16:52 22-08-2011, Ned Freed wrote:
>See above - I think pointing out the possibility of client signatures is
>important and the text should be retained, but without the 
>compliance language. I think deleting it weakens the document and 
>therefore I object to its total
>removal. That said, I can live with it going if not removing it will prevent
>the move to full standard.

Ok.

Dave suggested the following text:

    "Message modification can affect the validity of an existing message
     signature, such as by DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880], 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 signature"

As an individual comment, the "that consider ..." could be dropped as 
the text mentions that validity can affect message handling.

Dave and Ned are in favor of including some text and Pete is for 
removal.  I would appreciate some more feedback.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy