ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2006-02-21 11:23:40
 
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker

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?


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.

Should also have a way to force incompatibilty if necessary. 

E.G. if the version number shows a major version number upgrade then
MUST ignore the record.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html