[ietf-dkim] is s= really needed?

[Michael Thomas]

Paul Hoffman wrote:

> At 11:30 PM +0100 7/1/06, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>> 3.6.1, "s=". Given that new tags can be added to key records
>> without affecting compliant implementations, I don't see why this
>> is needed now and suggest deleting it.
>
>
> Agree, but could also be happy leaving it in for some odd extension.

I'd say that it's better to leave it in than not because if new records are
added for different purposes (eg s=espresso-over-ip) a compliant DKIM
will not allow those keys use for smtp, whereas if we extended it later
they would.

          Mike