On Jun 1, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Siegel, Ellen wrote: >> >>> TXT RR tags >> >>> k: Key type >>> >>> Much the same as h=, with the added issue that there's only one >>> possible key type right now, and if there were a need for k= in the >>> future it could be added in the same RFC that adds support for >>> anything other than RSA. >> > Dropping this to remove clutter seems like a reasonable idea, but it > would be necessary to meet a couple of conditions to prevent > breakage due to the number of existing records with this tag. > > - implementations would have to ignore any tags they don't > recognize (this should already be required, so should be no problem) > > - if this functionality is added back in later, it needs to be done > in a way that breaks neither records with k tags nor records without > a key type specifier (again, backwards compatibility requirements > should make this obvious, but if enough time elapses it's possible > people will forget about the existing k tags).
I would assume that if it were added back it would look exactly like it does now, but with some additional options other than "rsa". Adding k= back or extending it to support other options would both require RFC level effort, so I'd expect anyone doing that would do the research on the history (or, more likely, be on this mailing list right now :) ). Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
