Trying to refute the complaint I had gotten, from a person I was testing
with, about an errant field in my TXT record, I had totally missed the
wording in section 3.2. Unknown tags in the dkim-signature header are
mentioned in a couple other places, including section 3.5, but there's
nothing other than section 3.2 that deals with unknown tags in the TXT
record. Thanks for adding additional clarification.
Tony
Eric Allman wrote:
> Actually the spec already says that unknown tags must be ignored, but it
> could be clarified. Section 3.2 (the overview definition of tag-lists)
> says "Unrecognized tags MUST be ignored." I've added that same sentence
> to both Section 3.5 (DKIM-Signature header field) and 3.6.1 (Textual
> representation of key).
>
> Is there someplace I'm not seeing that says that we don't allow extra
> options in a DKIM TXT record?
>
> eric
>
>
>
> --On February 20, 2006 7:58:42 PM -0500 Tony Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Since my question before was hijacked by a totally different
>> thread, I'm going to ask again under another thread:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>> Tony Hansen
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> _______________________________________________
>> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
>> http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
