[ietf-dkim] Proposal for v= tag
pbaker at verisign.com
Sun Apr 23 08:47:51 PDT 2006
I agree, the whole point of getting core out quickly is to avoid the need
for excessive numbers of v= tags.
Core contains the bulk of the potential interoperability issues, well the
ones that can be solved at any rate. With SSP the issue is not going to be
interoperability, its going to be competing heremeneutic interpretations of
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org
> [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 11:20 AM
> To: Mircea Purdea
> Cc: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for v= tag
> While it may be sensible to start using v= now, or when an
> RFC issues, or in some other way, I don't think that having a
> different v= for each Internet-draft is a good idea really.
> Perhaps you are expecting too much of each version of the I-D
> in terms of stability/compatibility. These are working
> documents, clearly labeled as such and expecting a clear
> interoperability story between -xx and -yy for all xx,yy is
> not reasonable IMO.
> What the WG needs to do is finish the work and then everyone
> will have a nice, stable RFC to reference and code from.
> Mircea Purdea wrote:
> > Given that DKIM has reached a stage where new specifications are no
> > longer backwards compatible, I think it has become
> imperative that a
> > clear identification of signature formats be adopted. Not having a
> > stable specification is one thing, but promoting confusion by not
> > properly identifying incompatible protocols is a different thing
> > entirely, and one which I find unacceptable if DKIM is to
> be deployed
> > in production environments. It seems absurd, therefore, to
> have a v=
> > tag, and yet abstain from using it.
> > Having said that, I believe that single digit identification (as in
> > 'DKIM1') is out of the question, as it does not lend itself
> to draft
> > formats. Instead, I propose the following:
> > 1. Use a string format that directly reflects the
> specification it is
> > based on.
> > ex: v=draft-ietf-01; (would correspond with
> > 'draft-ietf-dkim-base-01.txt')
> > The idea behind this is to have a simple, yet flexible
> > identification value, that can easily be adapted to both
> drafts and final specifications.
> > In addition, it is much more useful to have a clear
> indication of
> > the specification itself; rather than an abstract identifier which
> > might confuse one who is not familiar with the protocol.
> > Note that if following this notation, the final version of the
> > specification should not be identified as 'DKIM1', but
> 'rfc13913' (the
> > number being, of course, an example).
> > or
> > 2. Use an eight digit yyyymmdd format, that specifies the date its
> > specification was published.
> > ex: v=20060413; (would correspond with
> > 'draft-ietf-dkim-base-01.txt')
> > Again, the idea here is to be able to identify the specification
> > used to define the signature.
> > The advantage of this format lies in its clear, fixed
> length value,
> > but unlike the previous proposal, (human) interpretation of
> this value
> > would require some familiarity with DKIM history.
> > I think that reaching a resolution on this issue before the
> next draft
> > release is imperative, and therefore hope that these proposals, at
> > least, help start a productive, and hopefully conclusive discussion.
> > Mircea Purdea
> > _______________________________________________
> > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 5986 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/attachments/20060423/b451e5c4/smime.bin
More information about the ietf-dkim