On Sun 23/Mar/2025 20:16:20 +0100 Allen Robinson wrote:
By having two independent headers, DKIM2 systems can continue to participate in
DKIM1 however they do now, so DKIM1 verifiers would observe no change in the
signatures they are being presented as a result of DKIM2 adoption.
I agree. Yet
It appears that Alessandro Vesely said:
>On Sun 23/Mar/2025 20:16:20 +0100 Allen Robinson wrote:
>> By having two independent headers, DKIM2 systems can continue to participate
>> in
>> DKIM1 however they do now, so DKIM1 verifiers would observe no change in the
>> signatures they are being pr
On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 4:12 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> I agree. Yet, the following looks silly:
>
> DKIM2-Signature: v=1; ...
>
> Better would be to have:
>
> DKIM-Signature: v=2; ...
I seem to recall previous discussions have suggested that the "v" tag
shouldn't have been includ
On 3/30/2025 12:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I seem to recall previous discussions have suggested that the "v" tag
shouldn't have been included in the first place; if things are so
different that you need to change the version, you may as well change
the name of the header field altogether
Perhaps the issue is that two similar but different things are being
conflated here.
Is DKIM2 a new protocol? I think the answer to this is clearly yes. We are
defining a new interaction between systems.
Does the DKIM2 protocol need to be implemented as a new header field, or
can it reuse DKIM-Si
It appears that Michael Thomas said:
>> I seem to recall previous discussions have suggested that the "v" tag
>> shouldn't have been included in the first place; if things are so
>> different that you need to change the version, you may as well change
>> the name of the header field altogether
On 3/30/25 5:21 PM, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Michael Thomas said:
I seem to recall previous discussions have suggested that the "v" tag
shouldn't have been included in the first place; if things are so
different that you need to change the version, you may as well change
the name of t
This would be better to capture in an I-D. Email to the list with this
sort of detail is way too transient.
Mike
On 3/30/25 5:09 PM, Wei Chuang wrote:
This email is a continuation of exploring how the hashing will work in
DKIM2. The prior email focussed on how the "h=" tag worked, while
th
On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 5:33 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
> Does this run on the assumption that DKIM isn't a trace header? I keep
> asking and nobody will answer. Two different working groups, two different
> bouts of silence.
>
As I recall, we intentionally made DKIM only SHOULD be treated as a tra
On Sun, Mar 30, 2025, 8:33 p.m. Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> On 3/30/25 5:21 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
> It appears that Michael Thomassaid:
>
> I seem to recall previous discussions have suggested that the "v" tag
> shouldn't have been included in the first place; if things are so
> different th
Draft minutes from IETF 122 are uploaded and can be reviewed here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-122-dkim/
Please provide any corrections ASAP.
-MSK
___
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-l
This email is a continuation of exploring how the hashing will work in
DKIM2. The prior email focussed on how the "h=" tag worked, while this one
will focus on hashing the prior DKIM2 signatures and whether to disclose
intermediate hash results to tolerate further changes. This is that place
hold
-- Forwarded message -
From: IETF Secretariat
Date: Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 10:16 PM
Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-gondwana-dkim2-modification-alegbra
To: , <
draft-gondwana-dkim2-modification-aleg...@ietf.org>
The IETF WG state of draft-gondwana-dkim2-modification-alegb
On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 3:23 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
> TL;DR: I still don't see anything that precludes this as a DKIM update.
>
I see it as a package of changes that provide the capabilities sought by
the charter. That "package" might be a whole new thing, or it could be a
suite of new tags o
On 3/30/25 12:10 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 4:12 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote:
I agree. Yet, the following looks silly:
DKIM2-Signature: v=1; ...
Better would be to have:
DKIM-Signature: v=2; ...
I seem to recall previous discussions ha
15 matches
Mail list logo
