> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of John R. Levine > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 3:31 PM > To: Barry Leiba > Cc: IETF DKIM WG > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Last call comment: Changing the g= definition > > > 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. > > I wouldn't be opposed to moving it to an appendix of deprecated features, > if for nothing else to ensure that some future DKIM++ doesn't > inadvertently reuse g= to mean something else.
That seems OK to me too. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
