> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 1:17 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> > Here's a draft that puts the forwarding thing into DKIM, with the
> > dread version bump. It defines a general syntax for conditional
> > signatures, with the forwarding signature the only condition defined
> > so far. (Since you asked, new conditions don't need another version
> > bump.)
> >
> 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".
Behold the main problem with version numbers in protocols - people invariably
attach more significance to such values that they really deserve. This
is especially true when the number is "2" - they call it *second*
system syndrome for a reason.
Nathaniel and I have long since agreed that the MIME-Version field is one of
the biggest, if not the biggest, fuckups in MIME. And yet it's a mistake we
keep on making in protocol design. Sigh.
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.
Ned
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
