On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Ned Freed <ned.fr...@mrochek.com> wrote:
> > > I'm uneasy with an increase in version that isn't done in a complete > > replacement for RFC6376. We're not just registering a couple of new > > extension tags here. I would prefer that, if we do go decide to go down > > this route, we crack it open and do a proper revision document rather > than > > just describing v2 in terms of "changes since v1". > > > There's a problem in front of us that needs solving. Part of that seems to > call > for a limited semantic extension to DKIM. Let's by all means make that one > extension in way that generalizes as much as possible. > > But using this as justification to crack open the entire specification? > That is not a good idea. I agree, mostly. I wasn't advocating for cracking open the entire specification. Assuming we go this path (rather than bolting down DKIM-Delegate's problems somehow), I would much rather publish RFC6376 again, with the "v=2" and the two new tags and maybe a paragraph about backward compatibility, but absolutely no other changes. I don't want to spend time reviewing and tweaking the whole damned thing again. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
