On 6/12/2014 12:22 AM, John Levine wrote: > One could make an argument that it's not technically > a semantic change to DKIM (indeed, Dave just did), but in practical > terms, it is likely to interact poorly with existing unupgraded > software, so I'd want a version bump so that the old software ignores > the special purpose signature.
The irony of your suggestion is that it requires having 'unupgraded' software reliably use the version number, given that they haven't needed to do that before either... > Bonus question: why put the author domain and target domain fields in > a new header rather than just addding ddd=<author> and > ddt=<forwarders> to the signature header? 1. Because DKIM isn't being modified. 2. Because there is non-DKIM information that needs to be permitted, namely the list of delegated domains 3. Because layering is our friend. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
