>I generally agree with "RFC only", but haven't thought about all eight >of the registries that -base asks to have created. It's not clear that >we want to do this with all of them. For example, we might want to set >a higher bar for the signature or hash algorithm than for creation of a >new signature tag.
Remember that the point of the registry is primarily to prevent namespace collisions. Registering a name for a new algorithm doesn't change the DKIM spec, it just tells people that if they want to fool around with that particular algorithm, that's the name to use to be compatible with other people doing the same. It'd take another standards track RFC to promote a particular algorithm into the spec. The main reason to limit registration is to avoid namespace exhaustion, but since these are all variable length text strings. that's not a problem. In general, the bar to IANA registration has been set too high, which is why there's way too many protocol parameters documented only in the folklore. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
