Subject: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- k: Key type

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 10:15:41 -0700

Folks,

In:

   <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q2/011959.html>

Steve Atkins posted a list of suggested DKIM features to drop.

This note is intended to anchor a discussion thread for discusses one of those
features, namely:

>    TXT RR tags

>      k: Key type
> 
> Much the same as h=, with the added issue that there's only one  
> possible key type right now, and if there were a need for k= in the  
> future it could be added in the same RFC that adds support for  
> anything other than RSA.

Please discuss arguments for and against dropping this.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net

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

---

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 18:51:37 +0530

To save bandwidth - I'm +1 on steve's list - in particular the ones
you posted surveys for, so far.