On Sun 30/Mar/2025 21:12:25 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 3/30/2025 12:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I seem to recall previous discussions have suggested that the "v" tag
shouldn't have been included in the first place; if things are so different
that you need to change the version, you may as well change the name of the
header field altogether.
Yup.
If it is upward compatible, the new features self-announce. No version mark
needed.
If it not upward compatible, it is a new protocol.
There is room for a lot of compatibility. If we don't change the
canonicalizations, a DKIM1 verifier will be able to verify a DKIM2 signature,
limited to DKIM1 semantics. A successful verification still adds something to
the properties of a message.
An unaware DKIM1 verifier might simply fail due to wrong version. OTOH, a
DKIM2 verifier needs to know which version it is, in order to apply envelope
and forwarding checks. It needs to distinguish between a malformed DKIM1
signature and a DKIM2 signature.
It is an enriched protocol.
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
