Paul Hoffman wrote:
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.
The focus on transit-related validation -- as distinctly different from
open-ended, long-term validation, has been fundamental for the entire life of
this effort.
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 header simply says that the
message was validated. Not that it can be validated at some point in the
future.
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they will need to come with the time after which the signature is no
longer valid.
huh? why?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html