It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>The proposed charter alludes to extending or modifying DKIM, but I'm
>getting the impression now that we're more likely in the space of doing
>something that looks a lot like DKIM and probably builds upon it, but is
>ultimately distinct from it. I'm hap
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 6:16 AM Taavi Eomäe
wrote:
> On 07/01/2025 23:15, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > Do we need to say explicitly in a charter that the best contemporary
> > practices in terms of cryptography have to be used in the development
> > of a new thing? If so, it seems like every ch
> On 8 Jan 2025, at 14:34, Richard Clayton wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In message il.com>, Murray S. Kucherawy writes
>
>> The proposed charter alludes to extending or modifying DKIM, but
>> I'm getting the impression now that we're more likely in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message , Murray S. Kucherawy writes
>The proposed charter alludes to extending or modifying DKIM, but
>I'm getting the impression now that we're more likely in the space
>of doing something that looks a lot like DKIM and probably bu
On 07/01/2025 23:15, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Do we need to say explicitly in a charter that the best contemporary
practices in terms of cryptography have to be used in the development
of a new thing? If so, it seems like every charter would need to be
explicit about it.
Is there any harm
On 07/01/2025 23:02, Michael Thomas wrote:
Has NIST given a timeline of when they are going to pick the quantum
resistant algorithm? I suppose if it's far enough out, it might be
worthwhile to wait, but on the other hand figuring out a transition
sooner rather than later might be good.
The
