On 12/7/2022 4:26 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Fair enough. Does the charter need to say that a revision to best
practices, relative to the replay problem, might be a possible
output? It's within the realm of possibility that no protocol work
comes out of this, but a "checkpoint" about current realities might be
good to publish in that case.
That's what is ironic about this thread: I don't think there has been
any suggestion to change the details of DKIM tech, just a refinement of
DKIM intention. And maybe rather slight modification to expected use.
But given actual current use, I doubt even that.
Frankly, the word transit was included to get an essential point,
without otherwise trying to tweak the wg work.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
mast:@dcrocker@mastodon.social
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list
Ietf-dkim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
