Minor nit: #5 doesn't apply because it's explicitly required to use up
to 40 bits.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> It seems to me that several people who are arguing to kill = ae
> essentially aguing that it has the same semantics that I beleive are the
> strongest that can be attached to x= and conclude that these semantics
> are not suficient to justify inclusion. Others argue that the semantics
> are ambiguous and it should go which is not so far from saying the
> semantics are clear, just different to the ones presented.
>
> I suggest then that we take a quaker poll type approach and put in the
> full range of options rather than require people to commit now to a
> yes/no vote. The range of options I see is:
>
> 1) Keep x=, signers should be able to limit the time period in which the
> accept resonsibility
>
> 2) Keep x=, signers should be able to state in the signature that they
> won't support the key retrieval indefinitely.
>
> 3) Delete x=, the semantics are ambiguous, people think of it as message
> revocation, they should not
>
> 4) Delete x=, signers can state the key support interval in SSP
>
> 5) Delete x=, time in seconds since 1970s invites 32 bit Y2K type issues
>
> 6) Other reasons
>
> My prefered options are 2 and 4 equally. I reject 1. I can live with 3 or 5.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
