On 4/3/25 2:20 PM, John R Levine wrote:
This short document proposes the tag structure for the DKIM2 header
and sketches out some of the other things DKIM2 will do.
It's a reasonable start on the spec and I think we should adopt it.
To the objection that we haven't agreed to use a different header
rather than extending existing DKIM, I would prefer not to ligitate
that issue over and over. Let's design DKIM2 or whatever we call it
to do what we want it to do, and if it then turns out (unlikely in my
opinion) that we can shoehorn it into the existing DKIM, so be it and
that's what our RFCs will say. Or they won't.
I'd feel more comfortable if a few changes were made:
1. change i= to be something else that doesn't collide with STD 76
2. change t= back to x=. there doesn't seem to be any difference beyond
a different tag name.
3. Explain the anti-replay mechanism a lot more. I've read through both
documents and still don't get it. It's hard to evaluate if it's even
on the right track.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
