On 10/14/2010 11:54 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Tony Hansen<tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
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?
I don't see the problem. If we just remove 3.6.1.1, then, yes, we
have an issue with migration.
If we remove g= altogether, then we remove the problem: ALL key
records will be treated as though they had "g=*", which means that the
problematic situation is treated just as it was in DK, and the key
records are compatible.
Or am I missing something?
No, that doesn't solve the problem for all of the implementations
that are out there now that implement 4871. Removing g= is only going
to make the situation even worse because you've now taken away the
documentation.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html