On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 04:49:48PM -0700, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote: > > The current proposal to remove x= has normative text which > requires verifiers to hard code a value that approximates the > maximum transport time of SMTP. There are many problems > with this: > > 1) These transport times are only informally known, but putting > an absolute value in the DKIM spec, we will make it to brittle > to any changes for that assumption > 2) DKIM has hooks for other services other than SMTP, and it > is certain the that new services will not share a common transport > 3) By designating an absolute value in the spec, this proposal retains > the same failing that it claims as a motivation for removing x=. That > is, clock skew will still need to be considered, etc.
Fine. But I've still not seen a compelling argument for x= that cannot be effectively achieved by revocation of the selector. > For these reasons, I propose that we retain the current semantics of > x=. As with every part of DKIM, retention needs justification. Michael, what's the compelling argument for x=? What do we lose by not having x=? Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
