Will Norris wrote on 2010-01-13:
> what do you thing about Joe's point about the confusion of the word
"valid"
> in the context of XML validity?
I think XRD validity is a superset of that.
> Would it be safe to say that if an XRD
> document has expired, then consumers SHOULD attempt to obtain a new copy?
> Or do think that is still overstepping the scope of the specification?
I think it's overstepping in the sense that if you don't provide normative
text related to *how* you obtain an XRD, then it's kind of strange to tell
people they SHOULD do so. I think it's simpler just to make it clear that
the expiration isn't meant "softly".
> I tend to agree with Joe and others that *some* direction should be given,
> whatever the strength of the language is. If we are going to talk about
the
> document being "invalid", then we should give some indication of what the
> means, and what action should be taken. ??
I don't think certificate profiles tell you explicitly to "get a new
certificate" when they expire, they just tell you that the signer can no
longer be held to the content.
-- Scott
