In fact, as I recall at the Cisco DKIM summit, the recommendation for
those wanting to experiment with implementations now was to use
allman-01 as the draft was expected to be in a state of flux and have
a number of further refinements over coming versions. In short,
everyone was expecting that it would change as the WG moved focus from
threats to base.
Mark,
There is a difference between noting that the IETF specification is in flux,
versus predicting that the IETF will produce a final specification that breaks
the ability to have a signer who uses the pre-ietf spec be validated by an
implementor of the post-ietf draft.
So far, we have not modified DKIM to cause this breakage. The current proposal
will cause this breakage.
We should not break the pre-ietf to post-ietf interoperability without extremely
good cause.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html