On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 4:51 PM Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...] > > To me, the charter should say something like "Solutions that do not > involve breaking changes to DKIM (rfc xxx) should be preferred unless it > is absolutely necessary. Where a breaking change is something that a > naive receiver verifier would not be able to verify even if doesn't take > advantage of any new features. This would vastly simplify transition and > leave it to receivers judgement whether making the upgrade is worth it. > My understanding (which could be wrong) is that the general idea is to deploy a new protocol that is an evolution of the existing one. DKIM as it stands today would be unmodified, but would theoretically become obsolescent in the face of the new thing once it reaches critical mass. If I've got that right, then it might indeed be good to make it clear in the charter that this is the express intent, and not extensions or enhancements of the architecture in situ. -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
