> You (Mike) clearly see this as more of a problem than I do. The
> compatibility I want to be careful to maintain is this:
>
> 1. Continue to be able to use existing DNS records.
Yes. That is my position also. The most important thing to protect are
the existing thousands of DK selectors currently in use.
> However, given that we have agreed to basically move to sha256,
> signers who use sha256 will be signing incompatibly with allman-01
> verifiers so I don't see why this change would be significant,
> following on from that change.
I think that's a fair point. Perhaps this change could be handled in a
similar fashion to the sha1/sha256 change.
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html