[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