On 2/14/18, 4:21 PM, "ietf-dkim on behalf of Rolf E. Sonneveld"
wrote:
Hi, Dave,
thanks for hosting the list for such a long time!
/rolf
Yes, thank you, Dave!
Tony
The ones I wrote certainly didn't require v=1 to come first. ;-)
But you're right: there's probably cause to be concerned.
Tony
On 2/8/18, 10:08 AM, "ietf-dkim on behalf of John R. Levine"
wrote:
> "v=1" doesn't have to
On 7/15/17, 1:29 PM, "Dave Crocker" wrote:
(sigh. re-re-sent to try for a valid tony address too...)
(resent, to get a working murray address. /d)
On 7/15/2017 9:10 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
> Original Text
> -
> tag-spec
tl;dr: I agree with the change suggested
*) I agree with John that "/" and "=" do not need to be encoded because there’s
no ambiguity if those were to be present.
*) I also agree with John that WS is already covered by the production.
*) But ":" DOES need to be encoded for sig-q-tag-method.
*)