Trying to refute the complaint I had gotten, from a person I was testing
with, about an errant field in my TXT record, I had totally missed the
wording in section 3.2. Unknown tags in the dkim-signature header are
mentioned in a couple other places, including section 3.5, but there's
nothing other than section 3.2 that deals with unknown tags in the TXT
record. Thanks for adding additional clarification.
Tony
Eric Allman wrote:
Actually the spec already says that unknown tags must be ignored, but it
could be clarified. Section 3.2 (the overview definition of tag-lists)
says "Unrecognized tags MUST be ignored." I've added that same sentence
to both Section 3.5 (DKIM-Signature header field) and 3.6.1 (Textual
representation of key).
Is there someplace I'm not seeing that says that we don't allow extra
options in a DKIM TXT record?
eric
--On February 20, 2006 7:58:42 PM -0500 Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>
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?
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
_______________________________________________
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