On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Terry Zink <tz...@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > OTOH, conditional signatures have been discussed for more than five > years (my > > dkim-joint-sigs I-D was in 2010), an implementation exists, albeit alpha > > (Murray's OpenDKIM 2.11.0), and we seem to have a candidate WG document > (John's > > dkim-conditional-02) which would match the charter's "form of DKIM > signature > > that is better able to survive transit through intermediaries". Can the > WG > > coordinate publication of these two I-Ds? > > -1. > > Not because I don't think conditional DKIM can't work, but that we need to > focus on one solution. When someone asks "How do I get email to survive > DMARC if forwarded" we tell them "Go do this one thing" and not "Go do > either this *or* this." It's also easier for receivers to implement, debug, > and maintain one solution rather than two. > That makes it sound like we've already picked the one thing. I don't believe that's the case. But really I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. The current focus should be on finishing the interoperability document, not which protocol project(s) ought to progress toward standardization. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
