On 13 Oct 2025, at 21:37, Inveigle.net wrote:
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.
No apologies necessary, and thanks for clarifying your intent.
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.
Yes, Murray and I were both caught a bit off-guard by the formality of
the notice that went out. We both missed the discussion on the Working
Group Chairs list that announced this new "feature" of the datatracker
system, so I totally understand your inclination to state the objection
now.
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.
Understood. So we will take this as "no objection to adopting this
document (i.e., using it as a starting point), but definitely some
technical concerns with the current content of the document.
Cheers,
pr
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
--
Pete Resnick https://www.episteme.net/
All connections to the world are tenuous at best
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
