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

[Dave CROCKER <[e-mail]>]

On 8/22/2011 5:50 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
> On 8/22/11 6:52 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
>> 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.
>
> So, I hadn't considered the possibility of simply weakening the current language
> so it's strictly explanatory and had no 2119 language.

Indeed, it doesn't make much sense to have normative language for something that 
is merely highlighting an issue and encouraging attention to it.

Perhaps:


     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.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net