Paul Hoffman wrote:
It should talk about being able to conduct a validation within a
window of time, and not being able to do it after the window closes.
If that's what the WG wants, great. But that is *not* what the document
says:
right.
i think we've well and truly established that the wording could and should be
improved.
It is more like a traffic light changing. Transit is ephemeral, so
it should not be surprising that a mechanism related to transit is
ephemeral.
This is a good analogy, one that it seems many people in the WG want.
But it is not what is in the document.
see above.
"passed the authentication tests" is an accurate description of what
took place. "Message valid at one moment and not at the next" is not.
We disagree, then. If the verifier checks the validity and it passes,
and later checks the validity and it fails because of x=, then "Message
valid at one moment and not at the next" seems to be a reasonable
technical description of what happened.
You utter a statement. I am present. Mark Delany is not. I can validate what
you said. Mark cannot.
This is a temporally-dependent ability to "confirm" what you said. (The traffic
light analogy is merely another way of describing this time-dependent
characteristic.)
Verifying that the signature was valid for transit, at one moment, and then
being unable to repeat the verification at some point in the future, does not
invalidate the original validation.
A DKIM signature says that someone asserts that they are accountable
for message transit.
And here we are fully agreeing again, although no such simple statement
exists in the document. (Hint: search for the word "responsible".)
See above.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html