On 18 Nov 2024, at 9:23, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 11/17/2024 2:19 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote: >> Regarding the question of "is this DKIMbis or something bigger"? It's >> something bigger than just tweaks to DKIM. >> >> The choice of the name "DKIM2" is partially branding, and partially because >> it re-uses the existing DNS entries for DKIM keys and large parts of the >> signing infrastructure. > > > DKIM is not called DomainKeys2. > > "Using bits of" is not the same as "adding bits to". The new protocol is not > compatible with the old protocol, in spite of reusing some bits.
I have been musing to myself that there might be ways to add fields to DKIM-Signature header fields in a way that would still be verifiable for existing DKIM verifiers but would provide additional functionality for DKIM2/DKIMbis/whatever. It isn’t clear to me that it can’t be backwards compatible. Whether it is desirable to just add another header field is a separate question. But we’re getting pretty far down into the design details when we’re still discussing the charter, aren’t we? -Jim _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
