On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 10:46:51PM +0000, Stephen Farrell allegedly wrote: > >I'm far from convinced that _any_ permutation of this is worth breaking > >backward compatibility. None of the reasons you gave seem compelling to > >me. > > That's a fair position. Others may disagree, equally fairly.
I'm not sure I see why backward compatibility is such a big deal for the email headers. There is a vastly larger deployment of DK and in spite of that, changes that broke DK headers where knowingly made in the evolution of allman-01 - even though one of the stated goals was the same as the DKIM charter - to try and be compatible. Now that there is a tiny set of experimental implementations and deployment of allman-01, suddenly header incompatibility is more important? I don't buy the distinction as rationale against this change or any other header change for that matter. In fact, as I recall at the Cisco DKIM summit, the recommendation for those wanting to experiment with implementations now was to use allman-01 as the draft was expected to be in a state of flux and have a number of further refinements over coming versions. In short, everyone was expecting that it would change as the WG moved focus from threats to base. I agree with Barry that the main compatibility leverage we can make is to Selectors deployed by the 10,000 or so domains that do DK signing. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
