At 7:46 AM -0700 4/11/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
But that's
a much different proposition than saying that they will be able to
validate them whenever they get around to reading them. That is not
the problem we set off trying to solve.
If the WG agrees with that last sentence, then many parts of -base
need to be rewritten. Currently, the protocol document puts no limit
on quickly the recipient is expected to do the validation.
Further, section 6.4 makes no sense and has to be eliminated or
seriously re-written. You can't put a header in a message for a fact
that will become untrue in the future. The semantics of such a header
will need to be changed to "This signature is valid when this header
was created, but will become invalid at time xyz".
Further, section 6.5 will have to be re-written as well to say that
when passing the signature validation information to higher-level
processes, they will need to come with the time after which the
signature is no longer valid.
There are probably more silly states related to x= in the document as
well. They will need to be fixed before the document can be
considered to be finished.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html