It appears that Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> said: >> 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. ...
The obvious reason to have a new header is that there's a new tag that the evaluator has to understand. You can't do that in a backward compatible way. I tried a couple of ways to kludge that in for my conditional chained signature draft, none very satisfactory: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dkim-conditional/ R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
