It appears that Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> said: >>> 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. > >It doesn't "need" to understand it, any more than any new extension >"needs to be understood". ...
See Murray's note. For my chained signature proposal there's a new tag that says this signature is only valid if there's is another signature with a particular d=. For that to work the validator needs to understand the tag. If it ignores it, it gets the wrong answer. As I said, I tried various ways to do this, none very satisfactory. In practice it's a new incompatible signature and might as well have a new name. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
