Speaking as a participant: On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 10:44 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
> I think we can dispense with the notion some supposed DKIM2 displaces DKIM > completely. That is never going to happen. > > It also presupposes that DKIM2 is new protocol and not an update to DKIM. > That hasn't been decided either, and frankly I've seen no evidence that it > would be necessary. In that case its overall relationship with DMARC > wouldn't be any different than now. Hence "premature". > I suggest we stop talking in absolutes. Everything is still on the table as far as I can tell. We don't know yet if DKIM2 will subsume DKIM. I don't think we'll know that until we've hashed out all the relevant engineering decisions. It would be significantly easier to extend current DKIM implementations to add a few new tags, but it's not clear to me that that's going to be sufficient to meet the stated goals. I think we do have a consensus presumption that DKIM2's requirements are sufficiently different that it will need to be a new thing and not just a few tags added to the old thing. A few of these came up in the meeting (we still owe the WG minutes). My personal favorites are that we're reaching across the envelope-content layer and signers need to understand mail routing, which substantially changes the operating environment for signers and verifiers. We need to start trying stuff out here, in both prose and eventually implementation. And I don't think any thought exercises are premature, or we'll never get started. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
