On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 12:20 PM Jon Callas <j...@callas.org> wrote: > > On Dec 3, 2022, at 11:42, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: > > > > On 12/3/2022 11:35 AM, Jon Callas wrote: > >> Agreed, and we need some other weasel word than "lightweight" because > there are lots of people working on "lightweight" symmetric ciphers. > Something like "appropriate"? > >> > >> Y'all know this is one of the many bees in my bonnet -- DKIM doesn't > need a signature that is secure for a year (or more), it needs one that is > secure for somewhere between a minute and a week. > > > > transit-time, cryptographic authentication ? > > I like that. >
I've edited in this change, minus "transit-time". I acknowledge that this is what Jon and Dave are saying was the intent all along, and I'm not arguing the point, but RFC 4686 -- which presumably recorded what was our consensus at the time, and which RFC 6376 references as foundational material -- disagrees, holding out an additional possibility that no DKIM document since then has dispelled. I don't think we should ignore this conflict; I think it's important to resolve and record that resolution, and this revised perspective can be part of the document(s) this working group produces. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list Ietf-dkim@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
