On 3/21/25 8:07 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 10:55 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
This seems to presume that "dkim2" is some creature completely
apart from DKIM. That is not at all clear, and it's not clear what
is being proposed is anything more than plain old DKIM with a few
new tags and some normative text surrounding them. I don't think
that changes anything wrt to DMARC as they have orthogonal goals.
We should definitely *not* be presuming that this is anything
completely different than DKIM, and frankly should stop calling it
"dkim2" until it's established that it is actually incompatible
with DKIM. It hasn't been. DKIMbis would be much more appropriate.
You are correct of course in that the hypothetical world I described
(widespread adoption of a thing I called DKIM2 that acts as I
hypothesize it will act) does not exist yet, and it may never exist.
Similarly, the world you're describing where existing DKIM is modified
as the end result of this group's world is just as hypothetical at
this point, so I ask for your (collective) indulgence, please, to see
that the question I posed is answered within the hypothetical context
of a world where the thing I called DKIM2 does in fact exist.
I really don't know why we should presume it's something completely
different wrt DMARC. Why would it be? I'm not really sure what the point
is of bringing it up at this point in any case. Why do we need an answer
for this now?
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
