On 2/10/2018 9:47 AM, John R Levine wrote:
v= word (, word)*
where each word describes a semantic feature. Feature tag "1" is all
the stuff in RFC6376. My feature is mandatory to understand tags,
feature name "mandatory", so the signatures start
The listing of 'authorized' features ...
Sorry, stop there. This isn't "authorized" features, this is "used"
fine, but that doesn't change any of the rest of my commentary about
unilateral vs. 'negotiated'.
features, as in if you don't support this feature, don't use this
signature.
In a unilateral activity like DKIM, the mere presence of the usage
"featurex=..." serves to flag that featurex is used. There is no
incremental benefit into moving the flag elsehwere.
Well, OK, other than DKIM-Improved-Signature how would you do
conditional signatures, where the signature has to fail if the semantics
of the re-sign tag aren't satisified? Remember that the current rule is
that verifiers ignore tags they don't understand.
The current point of departure into DKIM is by the header field name.
So I'm not sure why 'other than' is being queried, since it's the
natural, existing point for going to a different protocol.
Different protocol? Yes. Current DKIM does not require support for
unrecognized tags, beyond the initial set. You want to require support
for additional tags. That's a fundamental change; so it isn't 'DKIM'.
It's something different.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html