On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 3:55 PM Wei Chuang <weihaw= 40google....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> Second, I prefer the prior language, as it empowers the DKIM2 > working-group-to-be to update to the DMARC RFC to use the DKIM2 > authentication mechanism. My worry is that DMARC working group is not > chartered to do anything with DKIM2, and worse yet has language to preclude > development of new authentication methods i.e. "[DMARC WG] will not develop > additional mail authentication" in its charter that will cause confusion in > the future. Because the DKIM2 specification is meant to tackle multi-hop > flows that is problematic for DMARC when using the existing SPF and DKIM > specifications, I think it is important for DKIM2 to be able contribute to > better handling of these flows with DMARC. That all said, I think it's > even more important that this work get started, so I don't think my > comments should hold up sending this to the IESG. > I can add text that makes it clear this WG will either work with the DMARC WG to get that modification made when that day comes, or if that WG has concluded by the time that day comes (which seems likely right now), this WG can do so itself, directly, in collaboration with the responsible AD. Good enough? -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
