Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
For the sake of trying to find some compromise, can we do what we did
with the AUID/SDID debate and indicate which tags an implementation MUST
support and which ones it MAY support?
Always a reasonable goal. But what makes that sort of exercise challenging,
here, is trying to keep signers and verifiers in synch about what they *both*
support.
For example, saying MAY on l= could mean that a signer might choose to
implementer and a validator might not. Hence, no interoperability.
If the use of a tag by a signer, with non-support by the verifier, will prevent
interoperability, then I think it can't be optional.
This does not negate the benefit of what you are suggesting, but it does make
it
more difficult.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html