On 30 Mar 2025, at 12:10, 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.
That matches my recollection as well. We never defined the semantics of a change in the v= value. I get the sense that some feel there’s a stigma associated with the name DKIM, so the new thing ought to be given a different name. I have thought much the opposite, that calling the new thing “new and improved DKIM” would be accepted better because people have some idea what DKIM is. But that’s basically a marketing consideration, and I’m terrible at that so don’t listen to me. Of course, this all assumes that the new thing can’t be made backwards compatible with DKIM. -Jim _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
