-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 3:31 PM
To: Barry Leiba
Cc: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last call comment: Changing the g= definition
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.
I wouldn't be opposed to moving it to an appendix of deprecated features,
if for nothing else to ensure that some future DKIM++ doesn't
inadvertently reuse g= to mean something else.
That seems OK to me too.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html