> I admit that I also got confused a few times while working on the DKIM > documents and keeping it straight as to which section was referring to > which set of arguments. Having them use different values and different > tags for items that were conceptually the same was an unfortunate aspect > aspect of the history behind DKIM.
Indded. And the inverse. That the same tag had different syntax or semantics depending on location. Originally there was a unified tag-space to avoid these risks. That was easy back then as there was only 11 tags that covered policy, keys and signature thus little risk of tag-space depletion even with single character tags. Perhaps ironically, around the time tag-space was dimensionally expanded with versioning and multi-character tags, the principles underlying the unified tag-space disappeared. Anyway, as others have suggested, one solution is to put a tag-space hierarchy into the spec or... Alternatively, if you're a believer in versioning you could simply bump the versions and re-assign tags. This way you get to feed two birds with one cracker. Prove that versioning is useful and consign this tag-space fuzziness to history! Just kidding. Seems like Barry's later diagnosis is accurate thus if any clarification is needed at all it can be bundled with other errata. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
