Dave Crocker wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
How does this address my concern? This looks like my current receiver
would fail with the new signature format. That's not backward
compatable.
All verifiers already have to change, to support SHA-256.
Sounds like this is another exchange talking past each others'
meanings. At the
least, I am increasingly confused by which concern people are
responding to.
Indeed. I'm not a priori against changes. I'm against changes for the sake
of changes, especially in areas of the spec that are time proven problematic
areas for interoperability. I want the bar to make backward incompatible
changes high insofar as the proposers need to *justify* why it's worth
causing churn. It's not good enough to just say "well, we're making other
incompatible changes, therefore, it's dueces wild". Both the
canonicalization
and hash problems rise to that standard. The proposers of this change have
not made the case.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html