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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 2/8/2018 10:03 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> The code that knows to dispatch to v=2 can, just as easily, parse for 
>> the strings associated with the new features.
> 
> True, but not very interesting.  In my spamassassin example, the outside 
> code knows nothing about DKIM versions, it just sees a dkim-signature 
> header and sends it to the DKIM library.

Oh.  So v= doesn't dispatch to different code.

> 
> The point of a v=2 flag is to ensure that old v=1 code doesn't 
> accidentally misinterpret new features. 

"Accidentally misinterpret new features" seems to be synonymous with not 
being upward compatible.  In other words, the new features make the new 
version incompatible with the old.  Hence, the new features define a new 
protocol.


  In my example, I made a
> semantic change: in v=1 DKIM, verifiers ignore tags they don't 
> understand.  In v=2, there's a new tag type that fails if a verifier 
> can't handle it.

Change to basic semantics of the protocol.  Hence, new protocol.


d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html