[ietf-dkim] New Issue: extensions to the RR

I've added all this fun stuff to the issue tracker.


Mark Delany wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:58:42PM -0500, Tony Hansen allegedly wrote:
>   
> > Since my question before was hijacked by a totally different thread, I'm
> > going to ask again under another thread:
> >
> > We allow extra options to be specified in a DKIM-Signature header, but
> > do not allow extra options to be specified in a DKIM TXT record. (I
> > don't recall this being discussed before, but just may not remember it.)
> > Should we? If not, how would we do upwardly-compatible changes without
> > requiring multiple DNS entries for both an old and new entry?
> >     
> If the spec doesn't say it, then it's an oversight. The intent has
> always been to allow new tags in Selectors/policy and that existing
> code should ignore unrecognized tags.
>
>
> Mark.
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
>
>   
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html