It could put in a heading of "Unrecognized tag X=" for each such tag.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Aug 3, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
Sent: Sunday, August 02, 2009 6:34 PM
To: DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Escaping things in key/ADSP records
[...]
Nice work! However:
If anyone has good (or known bad) records that it gets wrong I'm
interested to hear about it.
It reports the contents of medusa3._domainkey.blackops.org as
invalid which is not correct. That record contains an "r=" and an
"rs=" tag, both of which are defined by active I-Ds. Those tags may
be unknown to RFC4871, but that specification says such should
merely be ignored; they don't render the record invalid.
For typical DKIM users though, commenting on an invalid field as "This
is probably invalid, but there might be an experimental I-D that's
using it, so maybe it's OK and receivers may or may not ignore it" is
going to be far more confusing than "This is wrong, fix it." - as if
they're using "r=" it's probably a typo or a misunderstanding, rather
than intentional use of an experimental field.
You're intentionally using non-standard or experimental fields - so
you know better than the mechanical validator, and that's OK.
(If we were to add a form on dkim.org that points to the checker, that
might be the place to discuss what it considers valid and what it
doesn't.)
It might be interesting to have an alternate checker that tracks the
additional fields being discussed in active I-Ds too, though. Is there
a registry of experimental fields or list of I-Ds anywhere?
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html