Minor nit: #5 doesn't apply because it's explicitly required to use up
to 40 bits.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
It seems to me that several people who are arguing to kill = ae
essentially aguing that it has the same semantics that I beleive are the
strongest that can be attached to x= and conclude that these semantics
are not suficient to justify inclusion. Others argue that the semantics
are ambiguous and it should go which is not so far from saying the
semantics are clear, just different to the ones presented.
I suggest then that we take a quaker poll type approach and put in the
full range of options rather than require people to commit now to a
yes/no vote. The range of options I see is:
1) Keep x=, signers should be able to limit the time period in which the
accept resonsibility
2) Keep x=, signers should be able to state in the signature that they
won't support the key retrieval indefinitely.
3) Delete x=, the semantics are ambiguous, people think of it as message
revocation, they should not
4) Delete x=, signers can state the key support interval in SSP
5) Delete x=, time in seconds since 1970s invites 32 bit Y2K type issues
6) Other reasons
My prefered options are 2 and 4 equally. I reject 1. I can live with 3 or 5.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html