On 3/30/25 12:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 4:12 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
I agree. Yet, the following looks silly:
DKIM2-Signature: v=1; ...
Better would be to have:
DKIM-Signature: v=2; ...
I seem to recall previous discussions have suggested that the "v" tag
shouldn't have been included in the first place; if things are so
different that you need to change the version, you may as well change
the name of the header field altogether.
Seems like six of one, half dozen of the other. The version change sort
of signals that it has a backward incompatible change, but everything
else will be the same. Not much of a reason, but it's not like it's
harmful. It seems easier to produce the document too, since a new header
would probably need to copy in all of the DKIM text and people
implementing it would need to comb through it to make sure that there
aren't other changes they missed. Again small, but not nothing.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
