Protocol Action: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures to Internet Standard

The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> Tue, 04 June 2013 17:15 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures to Internet Standard
Message-ID: <20130604151625.1790.17904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 08:16:25 -0700
Cc: dcrocker@bbiw.net, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org

The IESG has approved changing the status of the following document:
- DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures
  (rfc6376) to Internet Standard

This protocol action is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-dkim-to-internetstandard/

A URL of the affected document is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6376/

Status Change Details:

Domain Keys Identified Mail (DKIM, RFC 6376) currently has an IETF
standards status of Draft Standard, which is now an obsolete status.
This note requests reclassifying it to Internet Standard.

   (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations
       with widespread deployment and successful operational experience.

DKIM is in large-scale production use around the Internet, and there are
many independent implementations of DKIM.  See http://dkim.org/deploy/

   (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
       new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

There is only one, non-substantive erratum against an example in the
DKIM specification: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6376

   (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
       increase implementation complexity.

The -bis effort that produced RFC 6376 at Draft Standard refined the
document against implementation and deployment experience, and
eliminated unused features.

   (4) If the technology required to implement the specification
       requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the
       set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent,
       separate and successful uses of the licensing process.

The Yahoo! IPR declaration does not require users of the technology to
pursue special procedures, such as licensing:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/693/


Personnel 

   Barry Leiba is the responsible Area Director.

Protocol Action: DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM… The IESG