I apologise for speaking out of place. I am new here and my only point
of reference is the IETF guide outlining the progression of standards,
which I would describe as minimal.
I am participating because I care greatly about the integrity of the
e-mail system and read a proposal which I found highly concerning. While
it has been watered down to some extent, it's still represents a
fundamental shift of DKIM away from its original stated purpose and use
cases. I am certainly not alone in holding or expressing that view.
The particular issue I raised would have been in response to MSKs e-mail
where he talked of the eventual winding down of DKIM before suggesting
we proceed with a Call For Adoption. Given the a formal notice arrived
soon thereafter and asked for "comments to motivate your preference", I
chose to reply to that instead of addressing the lack of any migration
path for specific use cases in the earlier discussion.
Notwithstanding the above, the behaviour of the proposed rt=
implementation is outlined in the motivation document and by reference
is inherent to this proposal. It risks being taken for granted and I
therefore consider it appropriate to raise my concerns at this juncture.
Regards,
R. Latimer
Inveigle.net
On 14/10/2025 12:16 pm, Barry Leiba wrote:
As I read your message, I think you're giving a reason you don't think
that draft-gondwana-dkim2-header-02 is ready to be published. I don't
see what you wrote as a reason that draft-gondwana-dkim2-header-02 is
not a good *starting point* for working group discussion (during which
discussion you would make the arguments you put here).
Or perhaps I'm not understanding?
Barry
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
