On Fri, May 22, 2026 at 12:39 PM Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker < [email protected]> wrote:
> This message starts a dkim WG Call for Adoption of: > draft-chuang-dkim2-dns-04 > > This Working Group Call for Adoption ends on 2026-06-05 > > Abstract: > The updated DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM2) permits an > organization that owns the signing domain to claim some > responsibility for a message by associating the domain with the > message through a digital signature. This is done by publishing to > Domain Name Service (DNS) of the domain a public key that is then > associated to the domain and where messages can be signed by the > corresponding private key. Assertion of responsibility is validated > through a cryptographic signature and by querying the Signer’s domain > directly to retrieve the appropriate public key. This document > describes DKIM2 DNS record format and how to find the record. > > Please reply to this message and indicate whether or not you support > adoption > of this Internet-Draft by the dkim WG. Comments to explain your preference > are greatly appreciated. Please reply to all recipients of this message and > include this message in your response. > [...] As a participant only: I remain skeptical that this document is needed. My understanding is that DKIM2 publishes keys in the DNS with a syntax identical to what DKIM does, except that some tags are being "retired" and thus will be ignored by DKIM implementations. If that understanding is correct, then why would we not have DKIM2 simply refer to the appropriate sections of RFC 6376, name the "retired" tags not used by DKIM2, and give the RFC Editor a break? It's otherwise an awful lot of text to copy into a new document for no particular benefit. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
