John Levine writes: > >Can't both the version bump issue and the token signature issue be > >ameliorated by incorporating the token signature in the DKIM-Delegate > >field? > > Yes, you could do the equivalent of the version bump by changing the > name of the header, but I don't see the point.
There are two points. First, all the new semantics ends up supported by the new header; it gets completely ignored by existing MUAs, which means that there's no reason at all for a version bump. Second, a version bump means screwing with your existing, presumably working DKIM code because you need to produce a backward compatible v1 signature where possible, and a new v2 signature for the token signature and any other new semantics that gets piggy-backed on it. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
