I'm sorry Bill, I'm not understanding your question.
If you are suggesting using v=t for any testing version, then we
would still have to determine which testing version. The idea here
is in some sense that v=0.* is a pre-release, which I think is close
to what you mean by v=t.
eric
--On May 18, 2006 2:21:47 PM -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
v=0.2 v=1 and how about v=t for experimental?
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications, Inc.
Alpharetta GA
404-847-6397
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eric Allman
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PM
To: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Mandatory v= (summary from jabber session)
As discussed in this morning's Jabber session, I have changed the
"v=" tag in the DKIM-Signature header field from "MUST NOT" to
"MUST", with an initial value of "0.2". We'll expect this to go to
"1" when the spec is published.
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
