ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x: Signature expiration

2009-06-01 12:13:43


   DKIM-Signature Header tags

     x: Signature expiration

Expiration is a fairly common feature in signing specifications. But
DK and DKIM are different in that the public key is not distributed to
others, it's always under the control of the signer. Does this add
anything that removing the DNS TXT record doesn't do? Is it used? Is
it necessary?


Unless there are implementations out there that cache the public key for 
extended periods of time, I don't see any benefit of the signature expiration 
tag that's not available by removing the DNS txt record. 

And if it's absolutely necessary to distinguish between the case of "there 
never was a record" and "this key has been expired/revoked", it seems like 
keeping the txt record and removing the key would cover the latter... although 
I'm not sure there's really a reason to make the distinction. 

Ellen 

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