Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 02/10/2018 10:04 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 2/10/2018 9:47 AM, John R Levine wrote:
>> Well, OK, other than DKIM-Improved-Signature how would you do 
>> conditional signatures, where the signature has to fail if the 
>> semantics of the re-sign tag aren't satisified?  Remember that the 
>> current rule is that verifiers ignore tags they don't understand.
>
> The current point of departure into DKIM is by the header field name. 
> So I'm not sure why 'other than' is being queried, since it's the 
> natural, existing point for going to a different protocol.
>
> Different protocol?  Yes.  Current DKIM does not require support for 
> unrecognized tags, beyond the initial set.  You want to require 
> support for additional tags.  That's a fundamental change; so it isn't 
> 'DKIM'. It's something different.

DKIM-Signature-v2: vs DKIM-Signature: v=2;

Angels, meet the pinhead.

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