On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 10:06 AM Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 1/5/23 9:20 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > On Thu 05/Jan/2023 17:33:36 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> I've added a few proposed milestones with dates > > > > I wouldn't call "replay-resistant DKIM enhancement(s)" the > > deliverable. I understand the WG name is DKIM, but two of the > > proposed drafts don't even mention it. We may call ARC a "kind of > > DKIM", but a solution based on it would be better called an ARC > > enhancement, no? > > > > How about "replay-resistant protocol"? > > > Sorry, ARC is a failed experiment that doesn't deliver what it was > supposed to deliver. I disagree that it's a failed experiment. We're using ARC results for forwarders who choose to generate them. > The DKIM wg should have no part of it. It should be > completely out of scope. > I agree with Alessandro's proposed language change that allows for ARC. Moreover ARC is subject to the same replay issue as DKIM and needs some sort of fix. -Wei > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-dkim mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
