At 2:37 PM -0400 4/19/06, Hector Santos wrote:
> Verifiers SHOULD support checking of x= values.
I think this must be a MUST. In my view, this is risking malpractice and
product liability problems if a domain has exclusively expressed an
expiration and it is not honored by the verifier.
Armchair lawyering should be out of scope for this discussion.
Everyone should, of course, implement from the spec in any way they
want to with respect to their perceptions of the law. But that's an
implementation choice, not a spec choice.
If there are any harm or
damages some some entity (user or domain), this is subject for action
(asking for trouble.)
Similarly, threats of legal action, even by third parties, should
also be out of scope.
I don't think I am off base with this opinion,
I do, given the long list of IETF specifications that allow the
recipient to decide what they do or don't want to do based on local
policy, and the amazing lack of "malpractice and product liability
problems" that have come up.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html