Alessandro Vesely wrote in <[email protected]>: |On Fri 11/Jul/2025 17:48:06 +0200 John R Levine wrote: |> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025, Alessandro Vesely wrote: |>> But why multiple signatures? Is it to let verifiers choose what \ |>> algorithm |>> they prefer?
|Does that mean that signers must support all standardized algorithms \ |or only a |subset of them will be mandatory? btw if it were me it would simply be a name and the b=BASE64 output would be just like today, with x bits of algorithm X and y bits of algorithm Y. I think there are standardized examples which work that way, and noone DKIM needs to scratch her or his head just a single second. And, btw, there is the dkim-hash-adaptivity draft (yes, by me) which offers algorithms the potential to take advantage of algorithm-included checksums aka avoid extra work aka in the sense that possible optimizations of certain algorithms can be taken advantage of (not to talk about the better code flow). If it were me i would obsolete the existing DKIM Ed that noone uses, so that DKIMv1 libraries can be cleaned up again. (I would expect "any thinkable new algorithm" to include checksumming, so that is that.) --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt) | |During summer's humble, here's David Leonard's grumble | |The black bear, The black bear, |blithely holds his own holds himself at leisure |beating it, up and down tossing over his ups and downs with pleasure | |Farewell, dear collar bear _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
