Neither in their current forms. They are far too vague. They don't
specify what has been tried and/or are not adequate or don't work. They
should not be considered as the only two options.
Also: potential BCP's are in scope via the charter. That requires way
more information than any supposed protocol solution. Since that is by
far the most likely output of this, dismissing any talk of them is
violating the stated charter.
Mike
On 3/24/23 6:42 AM, Laura Atkins wrote:
We currently have two problem statements to discuss for adoption.
In order to move the adoption forward can we get some specific
consensus on the drafts that we currently have on the table or some
specific wording changes needed before adoption.
The drafts on the table:
Draft 1:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chuang-dkim-replay-problem/
Draft 2: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-crocker-dkim-replay/
Questions to answer:
Should we adopt Draft 1?
Should we adopt Draft 2?
Alternatively:
Should we take Draft 1 or Draft 2 and edit or modify it to reflect the
consensus of the group?
Do we have any volunteers to handle editing duties?
laura
--
The Delivery Experts
Laura Atkins
Word to the Wise
la...@wordtothewise.com
Email Delivery Blog: http://wordtothewise.com/blog
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
