Thanks Richard. Are there any other issues people have for the agenda in
2 weeks? Conversely, are there any of the items that Richard listed
below that we think are already closed and don't need to be discussed at
all?
pr
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
On 9 Jul 2026, at 17:18, Richard Clayton wrote:
Hash: SHA1
I was asked to supply a list of "open issues" that it would be useful
to
discuss at the Vienna meeting
Removal of null recipes for headers
ie: you always have to document what you changed
this considerably simplifies DSN handling, and it seems fanciful
that systems in the middle of the network are altering headers at
all, let alone in ways they are do not wish recipients to be able
to undo
Should we explicitly forbid Message-Instance headers that only differ
by
ordinal value
The spec has some MUST NOT's here but all they do is heat up the
planet, they don't actually cause interworking issues
PQ Algorithm
The chairs are going to ask for advice and we have had a
discussion
on how that question should be phrased. Stephen Farrell suggested
just insisting that all signatures MUST pass (but long ago the WG
disliked that so we have a SHOULD at present)
Case issues in JSON
should we insist that header field names in the recipe JSON
always
be in lower (or indeed UPPER) case ?
DSN flagging
Should we provide an explicit way of labelling DSNs (prescribing
a
Subject header field, or adding a flag?) rather than having MTAs
work it out from the context (and what email address is being
sent
to).
Feedback
the specification has a framework for asking for feedback but
stays
away from saying what that means. Does the WG think there are
things to standardise here ?
- --
richard @ highwayman . com "Nothing seems the
same
Still you never see the change from day to
day
And no-one notices the customs slip
away"
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
