IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-srose-dkim-ecc-00.txt

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Thu, 06 April 2017 23:56 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359291296BC for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 DHjoKlCcv12B for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
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 7EE701296A8 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 16:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31264 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2017 23:56:02 -0000
Received: from unknown (64.57.183.18) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 6 Apr 2017 23:56:02 -0000
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 23:55:40 -0000
Message-ID: <20170406235540.47811.qmail@ary.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
Cc: scott.rose@nist.gov
In-Reply-To: <ac345fcc-ae8e-a92a-0ec3-4792529c865d@nist.gov>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ChlGY5ZMGFHtN47JXbiTRumtz0w>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-srose-dkim-ecc-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dmarc/>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 23:56:05 -0000

In article <ac345fcc-ae8e-a92a-0ec3-4792529c865d@nist.gov> you write:
>This may be of interest to this group, as there isn't an active DKIM WG 
>anymore.

At the DISPATCH session at IETF 98 I pitched a proposal to update DKIM
with a new crypto algorithm and/or a more compact key representation
(put the key in the signature and put a hash of it in the DNS.)

Reaction was positive, people told me to write a proposed charter,
which starts here:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dispatch/current/msg06701.html

Also see:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dcrup-dkim-crypto/

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email