On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:15:13PM -0400, Hector Santos allegedly wrote:
I think the expiration tag (x=) should remain as part of the specification.
But functionally defined better as a message transaction (dynamic or
delayed) key management security concept.
Hector, you've done a great job of describing the mechanics as you see
it, for x=. In short you've describe "what" x= might mean really well.
What I'm not grasping - and I apologize for this - is the "why".
Why should verifiers care about an x=? What problem do you see it
solving? Particularly, what problem does it solve that a Selector
revocation doesn't solve?
You allude to an answer above with "key management security concept"
but I don't see any elaboration in your later text.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html