Re: [ietf-dkim] versions, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signatu

On 2/8/18 12:32 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
> I think this is the biggest flaw with the whole v= rationale. There is never
> going to be a v=2 change that doesn't leave everyone continuing to
> generate/validate a v=1 header. Is a new header by stealth better engineering
> than formalizing a new header?
I dunno, it's not like there isn't precedent for this. oh say, like ipv4 
vs. ipv6?
Besides if you wanted to go from DKIM to EKIM, you'd be opening 
pandora's box imo.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html