John Bradley wrote on 2009-08-11:
> If the new parts of ds:sig that Scott mentioned are backwards
> compatible, that may not be too bad.
I think they're just extensions in the Signature syntax somewhere, but I'm
not terribly familiar with them. They're also not formally done, it's just a
working draft.
> Other than perhaps for generational control what is the signing date
> good for?
Timestamps are normally big for bounding replay detection, and I'm not aware
of any such semantic here. An XRD is a document, not a protocol message.
> If it is to know what version of a XRD is the most current, that may
> be a good reason but shouldn't be part of the signature itself.
Yeah, I was going to say that if you add anything, it ought to be about the
XRD itself, not the signature.
-- Scott
