On 6/19/14, 6:14 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Ned Freed <ned.fr...@mrochek.com
<mailto: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.
As one of the co-editors of the last version, I agree whole-heartedly.
Tony Hansen
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
