Mark Delany wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 09:52:50AM +0000, Stephen Farrell allegedly wrote:
Section 3.1 says that a new selector should (albeit lowerase
should) be used when keys are rolled. This seems a bit clunky
and may lead to selectors with counter-intuitive names. Why not
include a version number or key ID that'd allow this to be
done better? The version could be included as the last part of
the selector starting from zero, e.g. "alice.0" -> "alice.1" ->
"alice.2" etc.
That can certainly be suggested as a strategy or best practice and can
be done now without changes to the specification.
In that light, is the issue just better word-smithing?
Almost. I think some guidance, and maybe examples would be
good and probably sufficient. In which case this could be
dealt with a just another editorial nit. Or, we might want
to change the ABNF to specifically allow for a numeric
key Id/version that increments. I don't have a strong
opinion either way but wanted to ask the question.
S.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html