ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Last call comment: Changing the g= definition

2010-10-14 12:50:49
  On 10/14/10 6:30 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:

On 10/14/2010 9:05 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
    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?

For pragmatic guidance text that is not essential for direct implementation, 
I'm
finding myself increasingly fond of the idea of putting such wisdom into the
Deployment document...

On the other hand, we have a fair amount of guidance (in the form of 
informative notes) in the spec already, and having it here would make it 
more likely to be seen.  This is short; we're talking about a couple of 
sentences here.

-Jim

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

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