On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 4:20 PM, John R Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> I'm uneasy with an increase in version that isn't done in a complete >> replacement for RFC6376. >> > > The problem may be that we don't agree about what DKIM versions mean. > Here's what I would like them to mean: > [...] > Actually I think I agree with most or all of that. My concern has to do with where a DKIM neophyte goes to get a complete description of DKIM. If we do what your draft proposes, then the complete definition will lie in no less than two documents, plus any that register extension tags or values. So what I'm uncomfortable with is a v=2 document that is nothing more than a changes-since-v=1. Think of it as software: For big important changes where cross-version compatibility is a question, it's typical to do a vX.0 release, not just send out one or more patches that one has to be sure to collect to see the whole thing. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
