[ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822
ietf-dkim at kitterman.com
Thu Jul 20 11:07:57 PDT 2006
On Thursday 20 July 2006 11:51, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Barry Leiba wrote:
> >> Is the requirement that DKIM support both
> >> 822/2822 content (822 being the current standard) or is the intent
> >> that DKIM is just required to support 2822 content?
> > I believe there are two parts to the answer to that:
> > 1. We refer to RFC 282x, as the current standard, and that's what we're
> > aiming to support.
> > 2. We're trying, to the extent we reasonably can, to deal with most of
> > what's actually out there, ...
> > Does anyone think that's not the right answer?
> I think your language describes things quite nicely.
> I am pretty sure that DKIM does not have anything that cares about 822 vs.
> 2822. That is, it works for both.
> So I have tended to view the dual-reference approach as a means of
> communicating to folks that they do not have to worry about old-vs-new
> specifications for message syntax/semantics.
OK. I may have mis-remembered, but I thought that one aspect of the naked CR
discussion (which a spun this thread off of) was that a naked CR is allowed
by 822, but not 2822. So I think there is something that cares.
Also, I think what you are saying is different than what Barry is saying. To
Barry - Design requirement is to support 2822, but we will try to deal with
what is out there are much as we reasonably can (including 822).
Dave - Design requirement is to support 2822 and there aren't any 822/2822
differences that matter, so by supporting 2822, we also support 822.
I think we need to have clarity on this point and it doesn't seem to me that
we have it at this time.
More information about the ietf-dkim