Even though I supported the addition of wording on how to improve the
compatibility with DomainKeys records, I would support removing the new
proposed section 3.6.1.1 for the reasons Dave brings up. But I'd like to
ask the question: Is it still worth changing that section into a WARNING
for people upgrading from DomainKeys, saying to make darn sure that they
REMOVE g=; in their old DNS records because of interoperability issues?
So the question becomes: if we remove the section on how DKIM and DK can
play nice together, 1) do we chop out all references to DomainKeys, or
2) do we keep a short warning on what needs to be changed in the DK
record to make it work with DKIM?
Tony Hansen
On 10/14/2010 8:09 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/13/2010 1:52 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
I propose removing section 3.6.1.1 in its entirety.
Not only do I support this, but I think we can remove all references to
DomainKeys, except for the obvious historical reference to its role as input
to
DKIM.
At the time DKIM was developed, worrying about compatibility with, and
transition from, DomainKeys was essential. Now it isn't.
d/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html