Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] another try at my question on options in TXT records

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:16:37 -0800

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker

> > We allow extra options to be specified in a DKIM-Signature 
> header, but 
> > do not allow extra options to be specified in a DKIM TXT record. (I 
> > don't recall this being discussed before, but just may not remember 
> > it.) Should we? If not, how would we do upwardly-compatible changes 
> > without requiring multiple DNS entries for both an old and 
> new entry?
> 
> 
> I liked Arvel's response.
> 
> 1. Additional options may be defined later.
> 
> 2. A validator that does not recognize a particular option 
> MUST ignore it.

Should also have a way to force incompatibilty if necessary. 

E.G. if the version number shows a major version number upgrade then
MUST ignore the record.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html