> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman > Might it be useful to break the exact crypto algorithm out > into a separate (very short) RFC so that it can be revised as > necessary? Something like: > > A validator MUST support all crypto algorithms listed as > not deprecated in RFC ZZZZ or it's successors, initially > {SHA-1, SHA-256}.
Good intention, bad idea. Essentially you have created a future dependency so the requirements for implementing DKIM now change over time. It is now impossible to interpret the statement 'complies with RFC XXXX' without knowing when the claim was made. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
