ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Straw poll on x=

2006-04-18 14:39:50


Paul Hoffman wrote:
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 Some people say that it is supposed to be when a particular signature is no longer valid; others say that it is when the recipient should not expect to find the signing key available; others say that it is when the signing system is no longer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".

Fair enough, "clarify" was maybe the wrong word, except that
if as you say the meaning is being interpreted in different
ways, then it seems we do need more text to say which of those
it is, or at least to say that it doesn't mean the other
things.

S



_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html