This issue came up while testing with someone else. I had left the a=
option in my DNS selector records (from an *early* version of the
draft), and their implementation choked because of the currently invalid
option.
I'm glad the consensus so far is for unrecognized options to be optional.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Delany wrote:
> If the spec doesn't say it, then it's an oversight. The intent has
> always been to allow new tags in Selectors/policy and that existing
> code should ignore unrecognized tags.
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> Yes we should. I was under the impression that unknown options would
> simply be ignored. That's the only way to make upwardly compatible
> change easily right?
Dave Crocker wrote:
> I liked Arvel's response.
> 1. Additional options may be defined later.
> 2. A validator that does not recognize a particular option MUST ignore
> it.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
