Re: signatures vs sf-date

> On 24 Jan 2023, at 12:27 pm, Lucas Pardue <> wrote:
> I think the problem is that you can't extend any existing field to use a parameter of Date type. You can't expect the receiver to know about the extension nor have the parser robustly skip the Data parameter that it doesn't care about. Constraining the Date type to new fields, or OOB feature negotiation, seems like a reasonable constraint TBH. Some text to call out the potential issues might be nice.

Fair enough. I think this is something roughly like (with more words) "Note that you cannot use Date in extensions to fields that were defined as Structured Fields based upon RFC8941, because recipients may not be using a Date-compatible parser."


Mark Nottingham

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2023 01:31:41 UTC