[ietf-dkim] 1193 considered harmful

[Barry Leiba]

> However we have so far preserved the ability of a pre-IETF signer to 
> work with a post-IETF DKIM verifier. (So, Barry's statement is true,
 > but I'm not sure it addressed the concern.

I believe my text, or a reasonable variant of it (modulo Paul's 
concerns, for instance) preserves this ability.  Do you disagree? 
Perhaps, if you do, changing a SHOULD to a MUST would fix that?

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, Pervasive Computing Technology  (leiba at watson.ibm.com)
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam