ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

[ietf-dkim] Proposal for v= tag

2006-04-22 07:55:23

Given that DKIM has reached a stage where new specifications are no longer backwards compatible, I think it has become imperative that a clear identification of signature formats be adopted. Not having a stable specification is one thing, but promoting confusion by not properly identifying incompatible protocols is a different thing entirely, and one which I find unacceptable if DKIM is to be deployed in production environments. It seems absurd, therefore, to have a v= tag, and yet abstain from using it.

Having said that, I believe that single digit identification (as in 'DKIM1') is out of the question, as it does not lend itself to draft formats. Instead, I propose the following:


1. Use a string format that directly reflects the specification it is based on. ex: v=draft-ietf-01; (would correspond with 'draft-ietf-dkim-base-01.txt') The idea behind this is to have a simple, yet flexible identification value, that can easily be adapted to both drafts and final specifications. In addition, it is much more useful to have a clear indication of the specification itself; rather than an abstract identifier which might confuse one who is not familiar with the protocol. Note that if following this notation, the final version of the specification should not be identified as 'DKIM1', but 'rfc13913' (the number being, of course, an example).

or


2. Use an eight digit yyyymmdd format, that specifies the date its specification was published. ex: v=20060413; (would correspond with 'draft-ietf-dkim-base-01.txt') Again, the idea here is to be able to identify the specification used to define the signature. The advantage of this format lies in its clear, fixed length value, but unlike the previous proposal, (human) interpretation of this value would require some familiarity with DKIM history.



I think that reaching a resolution on this issue before the next draft release is imperative, and therefore hope that these proposals, at least, help start a productive, and hopefully conclusive discussion.



Mircea Purdea

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>