Separately we need to modify the policy document so that the signing policy can state the q= options that may be contained in a signature.
Here you are moving beyond the realm of the optional I think. Additionally, this move would require a policy lookup on each signature check in order to determine what q= values were acceptable wouldn it not?
-- Arvel
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: NOTE WELL: IETF-MailSig List Participation Rules, Hallam-Baker, Phillip |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: alternate key server mechanisms, Arvel Hathcock |
| Previous by Thread: | RE: alternate key server mechanisms, Hallam-Baker, Phillip |
| Next by Thread: | Re: alternate key server mechanisms, Arvel Hathcock |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |