On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 9:23 AM Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/17/2024 2:19 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote: > > Regarding the question of "is this DKIMbis or something bigger"? It's > something bigger than just tweaks to DKIM. > > The choice of the name "DKIM2" is partially branding, and partially > because it re-uses the existing DNS entries for DKIM keys and large parts > of the signing infrastructure. > > DKIM is not called DomainKeys2. > > "Using bits of" is not the same as "adding bits to". The new protocol is > not compatible with the old protocol, in spite of reusing some bits. > I think it's possible to argue that this falls into the latter category. I'm not sure how successful that argument would be though. For instance, the "algebra" document specifies a header field that describes part of the process of reconstructing the original message, but it exists independent of the signing mechanism. Their combined use is the new thing, not the "base" layer that DKIM provides. Or have I got that totally wrong? Or are we trying to shoehorn this into the old name merely because we don't yet have a better idea? :-) -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
