Hiya,
On 03/12/2022 06:38, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I've placed what I believe is the text that is closest to consensus in the datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dkim/ Please provide comments or criticism soon. Once it appears to be stable relative to this audience, I'll send it on its way for internal (IESG) and then full IETF review.
That seems to fairly reflect the discussion on the list, though I've only been skimming it. One nit though, that you should feel free to ignore if it was discussed already - the phrase "in a secure way" doesn't quite capture what the DKIM WG was trying to produce, e.g. we consider unsigned DNS fine for DKIM public keys, even though that'd not be described as "secure." Maybe s/in a secure way/using a lightweight cryptographic mechanism/ would be better? But again, it's a nit. Cheers, S. PS: I'm not convinced there's a useful solution to be found for these replay problems, but the charter seems to me to allow for that outcome, so is fine.
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
