At 1:18 PM -0700 4/7/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:01 PM -0700 4/7/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
The alternative is to just put normative guidance in the document
to the effect
that x= MUST be greater than t=+2weeks, and less than t=+2 months
or something,
and that it SHOULD be set to t=+4 weeks.
That is an alternative, but I would ask "why use that alternative".
Unless x= is compelling, and compelling enough to overcome its
faults, why even put it in with these suggested knob-settings? I
claim that it is not compelling, particularly if the document says
what the purpose of DKIM signatures are.
I'm confused. If we added the text you initially suggested, the
result would be
that a receiver would honor the signature forever.
The receiver *could* honor the signature forever, just as they can
with an x= tag. But, in doing so, they would be going against the
semantics of the DKIM signature.
Are you saying now that
your original text needs to be amended to have a spec mandated lifetime?
Not at all: I'm saying my original text needs to be amended to add
the WG's intention of what DKIM signatures are for. (I thought it was
already there but, after reading the thread and then going back to
the document, couldn't find it. It must be ingrained in our beliefs,
but not in our text.)
I guess I worry a little about codifying an _exact_ number.
As well you should. :-)
Assuming your answer is "yes" above, then that's really what's at issue right?
Correct assumption, but incorrect conclusion. What's "really" at
issue is whether to have a unneeded tag that can cause problems when
removing the tag (and replacing it with text about what the protocol
is for) is better.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html