On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:15:13PM -0400, Hector Santos allegedly wrote: > I think the expiration tag (x=) should remain as part of the specification. > > But functionally defined better as a message transaction (dynamic or > delayed) key management security concept.
Hector, you've done a great job of describing the mechanics as you see it, for x=. In short you've describe "what" x= might mean really well. What I'm not grasping - and I apologize for this - is the "why". Why should verifiers care about an x=? What problem do you see it solving? Particularly, what problem does it solve that a Selector revocation doesn't solve? You allude to an answer above with "key management security concept" but I don't see any elaboration in your later text. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
