Add recommendation about KeyPackage expiration (alternative) #314
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
beurdouche
requested changes
Mar 11, 2025
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Beurdouche <beurdouche@users.noreply.github.com>
|
Thanks for the comments @beurdouche ! |
beurdouche
approved these changes
Mar 11, 2025
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is an alternative to #274, which adds a paragraph about KeyPackage lifetime in the Forward and Post-Compromise Security section.
This paragraph inside was the initial intent of #274, however the text I wrote there was redundant with RFC 9420 (as noted by @Bren2010) and ended up being removed. I believe the paragraph in this pull-request is better, and answers my concerns expressed here and here.