It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >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.
I think we agreed there will be only be backward compatibility for the key records in the DNS, not the signatures. The verification methods for DKIM and DKIM2 are fundamentally different. DKIM checks signatures one at a time, while DKIM2 checks them all as a chain. >* 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). Right. So DKIM and DKIM2 will coexist for a while, probably quite a while. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
