ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2010-10-14 17:06:49
Barry, there are crossing questions.

This question came up in response to removing 3.6.1.1 totally separate 
from the question of removing g= altogether.

If we remove 3.6.1.1 without removing g= altogether, the question below 
becomes pertinent.

If we remove g= altogether, then we can remove 3.6.1.1 *along* with all 
the other references to g= within the document.

     Tony Hansen

On 10/14/2010 2:54 PM, 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?

The only thing we're eliminating by removing g= is the ability to
restrict a key record for use only by specific i= identifiers.  And
Murray's stats show that there are fewer than ten instances of that in
some 300,000 samples -- well below any reasonable threshold of caring.

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

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