I suggested something similar recently, whereby a sender can explicitly declare the next host can sign on their behalf as a means to ease transition from RSA to Ed25519. A user signing their own e-mail would be able to make this declaration while those using an ESP that currently signs on their behalf, would have the ESP sign twice, once with the authorising key (the current DKIM key) and again with their own key.

That said, I don't think pp= is the way to do it as the argument against adding Ed25519 as a requirement is that it's too hard to get ESP customers to add a second set of CNAMEs to DNS. While I don't consider that to be an unreasonable requirement, adding a _pp is no less onerous.

I have requested time in the agenda to discuss an alternate approach to rt, dd/nd which can eliminate additional DNS queries or record creation and which could easily be extended with an additional flag granting upstream editing permission (a feature I would really like to see).

Regards,
R. Latimer

On 4/11/2025 4:28 am, Wei Chuang wrote:
While I understand the desire to keep DKIM2 simpler, pp= permits delegation to an email hosting provider as already pointed out above.  One consideration I didn't think of till now is this pp= delegation can help with the DKIM2 adoption especially when we consider the algorithmic agility requirement.  DKIM2 at some near point wants to mandate publishing and signing both with RSA and ED25519.  My guess is that many senders and forwarders will have trouble deploying ED25519, and one avenue to smooth adoption is allowing them to delegate publishing and signing to their platform.  That said, I noticed that pp= has been removed in draft-clayton-dkim2-spec-03, so perhaps this discussion is perhaps moot.

Regarding the mv= tag, can more clarity be provided how that is different from the i= instance number?  Is the idea that a more recent (higher i= number) DKIM2 signature can reference an older (low mv=) MailVersion header?

thanks,
-Wei


_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to