On 1/7/25 1:34 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 1:24 PM Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:I suppose this is also me starting to lean in the direction that, yes, this is indeed a new thing, not an update to an existing thing, even if it borrows heavily from the existing thing. In that case, cipher suite updates would be out of scope for this effort.Don't you mean *in* scope if it's a new thing?I'm saying if this thing (as I think Bron said) is meant ultimately to supplant STD 76 DKIM, then (a) updating STD 76 DKIM's crypto provisions would be out of scope for the proposed new WG, but (b) the proposed new WG can employ whatever non-obsolete crypto it wants to, and we probably don't need that to be in the charter.
Well, I guess that gets to my other post the other day. If this can be an update to STD 76, shouldn't it be? There is a huge installed base of DKIM so a software update to it would probably get adopted a lot faster than something truly new. The things in the charter don't seem to necessitate it being a completely new something since it looks like it would require some new tags in the signature block and/or header fields. I mean, we specifically said that tags in the signature block that the receiver doesn't understand should be ignored so it was always the intention that we allow for updates.
I will also note that if this is an open ended new protocol, it's going to take a lot longer than a specific set of upgrades which is another reason to keep it focused on what's in the charter.
Mike
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
