[ietf-dkim] Last call comment: Changing the g= definition
barryleiba at computer.org
Thu Oct 14 11:54:39 PDT 2010
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Tony Hansen <tony at att.com> wrote:
> Even though I supported the addition of wording on how to improve the
> compatibility with DomainKeys records, I would support removing the new
> proposed section 220.127.116.11 for the reasons Dave brings up. But I'd like to
> ask the question: Is it still worth changing that section into a WARNING
> for people upgrading from DomainKeys, saying to make darn sure that they
> REMOVE g=; in their old DNS records because of interoperability issues?
> So the question becomes: if we remove the section on how DKIM and DK can
> play nice together, 1) do we chop out all references to DomainKeys, or
> 2) do we keep a short warning on what needs to be changed in the DK
> record to make it work with DKIM?
I don't see the problem. If we just remove 18.104.22.168, then, yes, we
have an issue with migration.
If we remove g= altogether, then we remove the problem: ALL key
records will be treated as though they had "g=*", which means that the
problematic situation is treated just as it was in DK, and the key
records are compatible.
Or am I missing something?
The only thing we're eliminating by removing g= is the ability to
restrict a key record for use only by specific i= identifiers. And
Murray's stats show that there are fewer than ten instances of that in
some 300,000 samples -- well below any reasonable threshold of caring.
Barry, as participant
More information about the ietf-dkim