On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 04:49:48PM -0700, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote:
The current proposal to remove x= has normative text which
requires verifiers to hard code a value that approximates the
maximum transport time of SMTP. There are many problems
with this:
1) These transport times are only informally known, but putting
an absolute value in the DKIM spec, we will make it to brittle
to any changes for that assumption
2) DKIM has hooks for other services other than SMTP, and it
is certain the that new services will not share a common transport
3) By designating an absolute value in the spec, this proposal retains
the same failing that it claims as a motivation for removing x=. That
is, clock skew will still need to be considered, etc.
Fine. But I've still not seen a compelling argument for x= that cannot
be effectively achieved by revocation of the selector.
For these reasons, I propose that we retain the current semantics of
x=.
As with every part of DKIM, retention needs justification. Michael,
what's the compelling argument for x=? What do we lose by not having
x=?
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html