Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility

Is #3 a comfortable choice, in terms of balance and effectiveness?  Would a 
different, simple choice be better?


I have to agree with Mike (alert the media!) that key management belongs
in a BCP, not in the spec.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM in the MUA should not be the goal, just a side benifit, (continued) Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM in the MUA should not be the goal, just a side benifit, Douglas Otis Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM in the MUA should not be the goal, just a side benifit, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM in the MUA should not be the goal, just a side benifit, Douglas Otis RE: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Hallam-Baker, Phillip RE: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Bill.Oxley Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Dave Crocker Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Steve Atkins Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Dave Crocker Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Arvel Hathcock Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, John Levine <= [ietf-dkim] Key Retention and Rollover Stategies, Hector Santos Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Hector Santos Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Jim Fenton Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Arvel Hathcock Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Stephen Farrell Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Hector Santos Re: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Douglas Otis RE: [ietf-dkim] x= lets senders expire responsibility, Bill.Oxley