On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 4:56 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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? > > Looks good to me. -Wei
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
