IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Updating DKIM for stronger crypto

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Mon, 06 February 2017 23:50 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96A0512952D for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:50:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=iecc.com header.b=IkP6TBx7; dkim=pass (1536-bit key) header.d=taugh.com header.b=CLudHo3x
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WsZPdQZzGs4s for <dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from miucha.iecc.com (abusenet-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:1126::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3BE51294E6 for <dispatch@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 15:50:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 27280 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2017 23:50:23 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=6a8d.58990bbf.k1702; bh=qCZZx/OYF5MzdohiuztscZPvZV625nZwvz3ahLYECAI=; b=IkP6TBx7d1YL2/facFc6NDNnryqaPeLqi3z7z0qWrv/SAUZvIPhV7Q52UxtfGPwnuH9MQmwMaprkOsj7H79evX7te6eTpf0CLSfzaYF8savjOjJzhvO8kmC//w35ENZOPihjt254FufSCl7jpf9yd/DQyvEvccdxrKYrZDc1T8K9010Yg2YkEloVEdn09D1Lr10KcZAUqghWRiq5abQe3VEHnP0tXd35nstHB8OumYGbBUpXwJDc9QtRXlrfmoqp
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=6a8d.58990bbf.k1702; bh=qCZZx/OYF5MzdohiuztscZPvZV625nZwvz3ahLYECAI=; b=CLudHo3xcUz8fRluKoz8HsQYjCTgU4Vk57M5t2Grg5iNvyjasbg72CaJoWt6JqPcybWEjFvoAxtFF/OP3fm831a2oZyC3oAGAGoMZ7THmWXm/kIDXvz6oaI1cNa1psbSDaWnIifOHSycViRo3cBiSEKjjolhXZOxZ7dmoBg5WJBbm3h+Wxosaie1rth7sJqyboKsjfkDIMOZPjrz3a+cil9HjIqhzmkEhGfSmKRsGGkfVjqNDnCfZyKGmbz7SIKO
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 06 Feb 2017 23:50:23 -0000
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:50:23 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.20.1702061849110.23435@ary.qy>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <530C44E1-62EF-4DFF-AED6-ECF78B396C4F@iii.ca>
References: <20170206020826.1108.qmail@ary.lan> <530C44E1-62EF-4DFF-AED6-ECF78B396C4F@iii.ca>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (OSX 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/bGmXg3HEx2f65PNOK3AUOIj2dQU>
Cc: Dispatch WG <dispatch@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Updating DKIM for stronger crypto
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 23:50:25 -0000

> Assuming that some groupr of people wnated to work on this, how would 
> you suggest organizing the work in IETF? Is this just a draft that gets 
> AD sponsored be a sec AD, or do we spin up a mini WG that does just one 
> RFC, or is it an amount of work that it ends up with a WG that produces 
> more than one RFC? I'm just trying to get a feel of how much work is 
> involved here.

I should ask the authors of the current DKIM spec.  If we all agree what 
we need to do, it could be a straightforward AD sponsored draft.  If 
there's disagreement, e.g., about the migration strategy, it'd likely need 
a mini WG.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email