Hi Charles,
> The problem with the two existing Netnews protocols is that they are (a)
> different and (b) inflexible. Whether they would be changed to be DOSETA
> based at this late stage is doubtful, but certainly possible. But for sure
> they would need different key management protocols,
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 12:50:45 -, Eliot Lear wrote:
> While perhaps this is an entertaining idea (I was particularly
> entertained since it seems to take my notion of generalization far
> beyond where I might have taken it), absent an application I have a
> difficult time supporting it. And ev
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:00:03 -, Steve Atkins
wrote:
> But if other ways of getting the public key are more suitable, what's
> left? The only thing DKIM does is allow a domain to assert responsibility
> for a message in a relatively cheap (if unreliable) way.
That is most certainly NOT the
On Jan 13, 2011, at 2:41 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:10:52 -, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>> This raise a specific and interesting technical point. I haven't seen a
>> response so far, so...
>
>> The core of this technology has keys that are named and accessed in
>> te
Charles,
On 1/13/11 11:41 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
>
> The question of making the public key available is entirely orthogonal to
> that core protocol. The DSN mechanism is fine for some applications,
> especially where the lifetime of the signature is at most a few weeks. But
> other means
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 17:10:52 -, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> This raise a specific and interesting technical point. I haven't seen a
> response so far, so...
> The core of this technology has keys that are named and accessed in
> terms of
> domain names. It really is fundamental to this technic
This raise a specific and interesting technical point. I haven't seen a
response so far, so...
On 1/10/2011 3:07 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> I think keys should be able to be based on things other than domain names.
> Names of netnews newgroups in one obvious exception, but there may be many
>
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:09:53 -, Alessandro Vesely
wrote:
> On 07/Jan/11 21:58, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> Here's the proposal that Barry just announced, for splitting the DKIM
>> specification into a DKIM-specific portion and an underlying, more
>> generic
>> portion that could be re-purposed
Hi, Murray,
On 1/12/11 1:53 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Hi Rolf,
I think your concerns are reasonable. But I think the "marketing" of
DKIM can be managed and maintained as it has its own momentum now;
this may be true for the US, I'm not sure about other regions of the
world. The fig
iday, January 07, 2011 3:48 PM
To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
Cc: DKIM Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposed documentation split between DKIM and "DOSETA"
Dave,
On 1/7/11 9:58 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
Here's the proposal that Barry just announced, for splitting the DKIM
s
On 07/Jan/11 21:58, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Here's the proposal that Barry just announced, for splitting the DKIM
> specification into a DKIM-specific portion and an underlying, more generic
> portion that could be re-purposed for other services. It's current working
> acronym is DOSETA.
I'm emb
> We'd still have DKIM, it'd still be called DKIM, and (I assume) it'd still be
> in a document called DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures.
Yes.
> (Though I wonder: would it remain RFC 4871 after the split?)
It will not, in any case, regardless of the decision to split or not.
The updat
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:58:02 -, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Here's the proposal that Barry just announced, for splitting the DKIM
> specification into a DKIM-specific portion and an underlying, more
> generic
> portion that could be re-purposed for other services. It's current
> working
> acro
On 1/7/2011 2:35 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> In the list of nits I sent along some months ago, I noted that there was a
> fair
> amount of text that implied that a DKIM verifier produces an edited version of
> the message it's verifying. I gather we agree that it doesn't, so, uh, what's
> the ne
On Jan 7, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> • it has taken some four years to make DKIM what it is now. And with
> that, I don't mean the protocol specification itself, but I mean adoption,
> deployment, acceptance of DKIM, the level of knowledge about DKIM within
> organizatio
Dave,
On 1/7/11 9:58 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
Here's the proposal that Barry just announced, for splitting the DKIM
specification into a DKIM-specific portion and an underlying, more generic
portion that could be re-purposed for other services. It's current working
acronym is DOSETA.
No
>Here's the proposal that Barry just announced, for splitting the DKIM
>specification into a DKIM-specific portion and an underlying, more generic
>portion that could be re-purposed for other services. It's current working
>acronym is DOSETA.
Seems reasonable to me, both the split, and the pla
> And so, for example, controversial items such as MUA discussion were
> preserved. Although they might be worthy of further discussion, that
> discussion has NOTHING to do with the current round of effort.
In the list of nits I sent along some months ago, I noted that there was a
fair amount
On 1/7/2011 2:24 PM, John Levine wrote:
> As it stands, 4871 suffers from too much history, and as a result
> contains a great deal of stuff that has nothing to do with
> implementing the protocol. I would, for example, get rid of
> everything about MUAs beyond mentioning the bare facts that MUA
Folks,
Here's the proposal that Barry just announced, for splitting the DKIM
specification into a DKIM-specific portion and an underlying, more generic
portion that could be re-purposed for other services. It's current working
acronym is DOSETA.
Note that when combined the two documents would
20 matches
Mail list logo
