Current
x= Signature Expiration (plain-text; RECOMMENDED, default is no
expiration). The format is the same as in the "t=" tag,
represented as an absolute date, not as a time delta from the
signing timestamp. Signatures MUST NOT be considered valid if
the current time at the verifier is past the expiration date.
The value is expressed as an unsigned integer in decimal ASCII,
with the same constraints on the value in the "t=" tag. The
value
of the "x=" tag MUST be greater than the value of the "t=" tag if
both are present.
INFORMATIVE NOTE: The x= tag is not intended as an anti-
replay defense.
Proposed
x= Expiration date (plain-text; RECOMMENDED, default is no
expiration). The format is the same as in the "t=" tag,
represented as an absolute date, not as a time delta from the
signing timestamp. Signatures MUST NOT be considered valid if
the current time at the verifier is past the expiration date.
The value is expressed as an unsigned integer in decimal ASCII,
with the same constraints on the value in the "t=" tag. The
value
of the "x=" tag MUST be greater than the value of the "t=" tag if
both are present.
INFORMATIVE NOTE: The x= tag is not intended as an anti-
replay defense. Its proposed use is to indicate Key/Signature
expiration. When message is considered expired It becomes the
policy of the verifier on how to further process the message.
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications, Inc.
Alpharetta GA
404-847-6397
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:58 PM
To: ietf-dkim
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Straw poll on x=
Results are in:
Keep (8)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remove (9)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Hill)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And that includes a vote that changed sides! Let me know
if I've missed anyone, but I suspect it won't make a
difference really.
So there is no clear consensus to delete x=, therefore
we go with the status quo.
Could I ask that someone try propose text for the draft
to clarify the meaning of x=, bearing in mind all of
the list discussion?
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
