Doing it now might overload the WG. If DKIM for binary has its own merit, we can just hypothesize we'll do. Meanwhile we can mention it and suggest to use it for https: when it comes, if ever. After all, that's what RFC 2045 does with "binary".
Since client certificates exist and http DKIM signatures do not, that doesn't sound like a great plan.
Regards, John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
