Dave Crocker wrote:
> We should make sure that there is a reasonably clear view of
> priorities for preservering installed base... or not.
My idea would be "like TLS and SSL": A future "IETF checker"
must handle valid "legacy signatures", but a "legacy checker"
might be unable to handle all valid future "IETF signatures".
Isn't that obvious ? Otherwise all DKIM milestones could be
reduced to "publish DKIM as is next week and be done with it".
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
