> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
> > We allow extra options to be specified in a DKIM-Signature > header, but > > do not allow extra options to be specified in a DKIM TXT record. (I > > don't recall this being discussed before, but just may not remember > > it.) Should we? If not, how would we do upwardly-compatible changes > > without requiring multiple DNS entries for both an old and > new entry? > > > 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. Should also have a way to force incompatibilty if necessary. E.G. if the version number shows a major version number upgrade then MUST ignore the record. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
