Colleagues, With apologies for the tardiness, which is entirely my fault and not Pete’s, the Chairs have reviewed the recording, minutes, and chat transcript of our Madrid meeting and believe there was rough consensus in the room about the following points, which we wanted to confirm with the working group:
* Adopt Bron’s document, and prefer a more omnibus approach, breaking out things when it makes sense to do so. * There will be backward compatibility with DKIM (referred to in the room as a “transition”); there will be no flag day. * This will be a new protocol with a new header field name, rather than a new version of DKIM itself (i.e., a “v=2” tag). Please note on the list if you disagree with these conclusions (silence will be taken as agreement). In addition, there was discussion on this question, and we think there was some convergence but felt a conclusion was not quite reached, so we invite further discussion: * Should we start working on an applicability statement and/or deployment guidance document, perhaps using the motivations document as a starting point? And finally, there was an apparent action item for Andy to consider whether this WG should plan to recharter (now or later) around how to deal with any cryptography support issues (e.g., new algorithms) that may come up. Discuss! -MSK, for the DKIM chairs
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
