On Wed, Nov 20, 2024, at 09:02, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 9:23 AM Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> 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 think it's possible to argue that this falls into the latter category. I'm > not sure how successful that argument would be though. For instance, the > "algebra" document specifies a header field that describes part of the > process of reconstructing the original message, but it exists independent of > the signing mechanism. Their combined use is the new thing, not the "base" > layer that DKIM provides. > > Or have I got that totally wrong? > > Or are we trying to shoehorn this into the old name merely because we don't > yet have a better idea? :-)
We're trying to shoehorn this into the old name because for the vast majority of people who aren't configuring their own infrastructure and are just buying it from somebody; the DKIM "brand" is already somewhat known, and this new thing will serve the same purpose for them - and require them to do the same thing (set up a handful of DNS entries). Bron. -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd br...@fastmailteam.com
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
