On Sat, Aug 30, 2025, at 03:03, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > 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).
Per my answer to Dave's email, I'd suggest the following alternative wording: • Adopt Bron’s document and prefer a wholistic approach, breaking out things into separate documents when it makes sense to do so, but designing them to work together. • The protocol will run in parallel with existing DKIM, and not require a flag-day where all sites must change simultaneously. • 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). Cheers, Bron -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd / Fastmail US LLC [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
