[ietf-dkim] Base-02 //Deprecated Signature Version & New List

[Eric Allman]

There are many reasons I don't like this proposal.  Let me start with 
the easily fixed ones:

(1) Overloading existing tags to add new functionality is absurd. 
Adding "d" to the end of the version has nothing to do with the 
version; this should be a flag.  Similarly, changing the n= tag 
(which is supposed to be nothing more than human-readable "note" 
text) to have additional semantics is bizarre; it should be a new tag.

(2) I'm getting a bit tired of seeing new terms used that have never 
been defined.  What's a VAQ value?  Based on Google it seems to mean 
"Value Added Quest" (a competition for all West Australian students). 
Or maybe Soctiabank's "Value Added Quarterly".  It's also a military 
abbreviation for "Naval Tactical Electronic Warfare Squadron" 
(derivation unclear).  Oh wait, maybe it means the values of the v=, 
a=, and q= tags.  Now why not just say that in the first place?

And the more basic issue:

(3) Wasn't the issue of downgrade attacks discussed in Dallas and 
resolved on the list?  In specific, it was issue 1196 (Upgrade 
indication and protection against downgrade attacks).  As near as I 
can tell, the exact same issues that Doug is raising were discussed 
in this issue, and a frankly much more elegant approach was proposed. 
Why is this issue alive again?

eric