On 1/25/25 10:10 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
> The working group will pursue incremental enhancements to DKIM
> and/or DKIM use, where possible. It will pursue parallel or
> replacement mechanisms only where incremental change is not feasible.
this is recipe for spending a considerable amount of time arguing about
exotic changes to existing fields and will result in complex and hard to
maintain code that has to handle two (or more) interpretations of header
fields in parallel. This heats up the planet to no purpose (let alone
heating up the tempers of WG participants)
if the engineers (including myself) who have been debating these issues
(for most of a year now) thought that simple mods to DKIM1 were a good
way forward that is what we would have proposed.
I'm sorry can you give some examples of the "exotic changes to existing
fields"? I'm drawing a blank on why you'd need to change existing fields
at all vs introducing new tags, and especially since introducing new
mail headers is also an option.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
