On 8/29/2025 10:03 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
* Adopt Bron’s document, and prefer a more omnibus approach, breaking
out things when it makes sense to do so.
Apologies. In spite of the added clause, I do not know what 'omnibus'
means in this context, given the definition of the word.
* There will be backward compatibility with DKIM (referred to in the
room as a “transition”); there will be no flag day.
Except that 'backward compatibility' and 'transition' are orthogonal
constructs.
"allows for interoperability
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoperability> with an older
legacy system <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_system>, or with
input <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input/output> designed for such
a system."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_compatibility
The technical details of DKIM2, so far, and all of the substantive
discussions, are for a parallel and non-interoperable service.
* 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).
Exactly. NOT backward compatible.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social
mast: @[email protected]
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
