[ietf-dkim] Mandatory v= (summary from jabber session)

[Eric Allman]

I'm sorry Bill, I'm not understanding your question.

If you are suggesting using v=t for any testing version, then we 
would still have to determine which testing version.  The idea here 
is in some sense that v=0.* is a pre-release, which I think is close 
to what you mean by v=t.

eric


--On May 18, 2006 2:21:47 PM -0400 Bill.Oxley at cox.com wrote:

> v=0.2 v=1 and how about v=t for experimental?
>
> Bill Oxley
> Messaging Engineer
> Cox Communications, Inc.
> Alpharetta GA
> 404-847-6397
> bill.oxley at cox.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org
> [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Eric Allman
> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 2:02 PM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Mandatory v= (summary from jabber session)
>
> As discussed in this morning's Jabber session, I have changed the
> "v=" tag in the DKIM-Signature header field from "MUST NOT" to
> "MUST", with an initial value of "0.2".  We'll expect this to go to
> "1" when the spec is published.
>
> eric
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>