ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] another try at my question on options in TXT records

2006-02-21 07:20:04
This issue came up while testing with someone else. I had left the a=
option in my DNS selector records (from an *early* version of the
draft), and their implementation choked because of the currently invalid
option.

I'm glad the consensus so far is for unrecognized options to be optional.

        Tony Hansen
        tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com

Mark Delany wrote:
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.

Arvel Hathcock wrote:
Yes we should.  I was under the impression that unknown options would
simply be ignored.  That's the only way to make upwardly compatible
change easily right?

Dave Crocker wrote:
I liked Arvel's response.
1. Additional options may be defined later.
2. A validator that does not recognize a particular option MUST ignore
it.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html