On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:30 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 1:56 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: >> >> There is room for a lot of compatibility. If we don't change the >> canonicalizations, a DKIM1 verifier will be able to verify a DKIM2 signature, >> limited to DKIM1 semantics. [...] > > I can't tell if this sentence confuses me, or is expressly contrary to what > we probably want here. > > That is, it's possible we specifically do not want a DKIM verifier to be able > to claim success over a DKIM2 signature, accidentally or otherwise.
I think I don't want an existing DKIM verifier to be able to provide some sort of result for a DKIM2 signature. I foresee much confusion resulting from that. I think there would be lots of downside from that confusion. But I struggle to see any potential upside. Cheers, Al Iverson _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
