On 10/14/2010 11:54 AM, Barry Leiba wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Tony Hansen<t...@att.com> wrote: >> Even though I supported the addition of wording on how to improve the >> compatibility with DomainKeys records, I would support removing the new >> proposed section 3.6.1.1 for the reasons Dave brings up. But I'd like to >> ask the question: Is it still worth changing that section into a WARNING >> for people upgrading from DomainKeys, saying to make darn sure that they >> REMOVE g=; in their old DNS records because of interoperability issues? >> >> So the question becomes: if we remove the section on how DKIM and DK can >> play nice together, 1) do we chop out all references to DomainKeys, or >> 2) do we keep a short warning on what needs to be changed in the DK >> record to make it work with DKIM? > > I don't see the problem. If we just remove 3.6.1.1, then, yes, we > have an issue with migration. > > If we remove g= altogether, then we remove the problem: ALL key > records will be treated as though they had "g=*", which means that the > problematic situation is treated just as it was in DK, and the key > records are compatible. > > Or am I missing something?
No, that doesn't solve the problem for all of the implementations that are out there now that implement 4871. Removing g= is only going to make the situation even worse because you've now taken away the documentation. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
