So, are we going to create a new header field every time we come up with
some new required semantic we want to attach to a DKIM signature?
Admittedly this hasn't happened previously, but predicting the future has
never been our strong suit.
Why don't we fix the extensibility problem instead?
Ned
> Here's the exact same proposal, except done with a new header
> CDKIM-Signature rather than a DKIM version bump.
> A new version of I-D, draft-levine-cdkim-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by John Levine and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> Name: draft-levine-cdkim
> Revision: 00
> Title: CDKIM Signatures
> Document date: 2014-06-19
> Group: Individual Submission
> Pages: 5
> URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levine-cdkim-00.txt
> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-cdkim/
> Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-cdkim-00
> Abstract:
> The DKIM protocol applies a cryptographic signature to an e-mail
> message. This specification defines a DKIM-like signature that
> includes the specification of external conditions that must be
> satisfied for a signature to be valid.
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
