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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Russ,
At 07:06 24-08-2011, Russ Housley wrote:
>As Dave well knows, the presence of an invalid signature is 
>different than no signature at all.  The technical community keeps 
>telling implementors that they are not really different, but folks 
>that writ code seem to think otherwise.  The proposed text does not 
>say anything about the signature validity,  At a minimum, is should 
>say "...of a valid signature."

Dave suggested the following (new) text as a replacement:

   "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 valid signature."

The only change from the previous text is the last line.

The only comment received from the YAM WG has been from Dave.  Based 
on both comments, I think we have replacement text that all parties 
can live with.  I'll consider this DISCUSS as addressed.

Thanks,
S. Moonesamy