On 3/31/25 9:37 AM, Al Iverson wrote:
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.
This presupposes some solution which is not available that I've seen.
Absent a document to evaluate, I'm not sure why we're positing backward
incompatibility as if it were a given.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
