Subject: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x: Signature expiration

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:12:47 -0700

Folks,

In:

   <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q2/011959.html>

Steve Atkins posted a list of suggested DKIM features to drop.

This note is intended to anchor a discussion thread for discusses one of those 
features, namely:

>    DKIM-Signature Header tags
> 
>      x: Signature expiration
> 
> Expiration is a fairly common feature in signing specifications. But  
> DK and DKIM are different in that the public key is not distributed to  
> others, it's always under the control of the signer. Does this add  
> anything that removing the DNS TXT record doesn't do? Is it used? Is  
> it necessary?

Please discuss arguments for and against dropping this.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html