On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 09:52:50AM +0000, Stephen Farrell allegedly wrote: > > Section 3.1 says that a new selector should (albeit lowerase > should) be used when keys are rolled. This seems a bit clunky > and may lead to selectors with counter-intuitive names. Why not > include a version number or key ID that'd allow this to be > done better? The version could be included as the last part of > the selector starting from zero, e.g. "alice.0" -> "alice.1" -> > "alice.2" etc.
That can certainly be suggested as a strategy or best practice and can be done now without changes to the specification. In that light, is the issue just better word-smithing? Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
