At 9:58 PM +0100 4/18/06, Stephen Farrell wrote:
So there is no clear consensus to delete x=, therefore
we go with the status quo.
Right.
Could I ask that someone try propose text for the draft
to clarify the meaning of x=, bearing in mind all of
the list discussion?
The meaning of x= is completely clear in the -00 and -01 drafts.
However, many people on the list, including some of the document
authors, have wide disagreement about what x= is supposed to do. Some
people say that it is supposed to be when a particular signature is
no longer valid; others say that it is when the recipient should not
expect to find the signing key available; others say that it is when
the signing system is no longer responsible for the message; others
say it is a combination of those. If someone can come up with a
consensus statement from the recent list traffic, that's great; I
failed.
Instead of clarifying, we need to associate semantics with x=, even
if those are "the signer can cause signature expiration for any
reason without saying why".
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html