The IESG has approved the following document: - 'RFC 4871 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures -- Update ' <draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-07.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Pasi Eronen and Tim Polk. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-07.txt Technical Summary This document updates RFC 4871, DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures. Specifically the document clarifies the nature, roles and relationship of the two DKIM identifier tag values that are candidates for payload delivery to a receiving processing module. The Update is in the style of an errata entry. Working Group Summary This document arose from an errata report against RFC 4871, and from attempts to address the issue raised, which required clarification of some terminology. After some discussion, it was clear that the working group is divided as to how extensive the clarification needs to be, with a significant majority opting for the more extensive version represented here. In a spirit of compromise and a desire for progress, the working group agreed to some changes to the text that make it acceptable to most of the participants. RFC 4871 was published two years ago, and since then, the collective understanding of the role of DKIM has improved based on deployment experience and work on the other DKIM WG drafts (Author Domain Signing Practices; Service Overview; Development, Deployment and Operations). Since it is not absolutely clear that the clarifications completely match the intent at the time when RFC 4871 was published (when the role of DKIM was less well understood), they are published as an RFC updating RFC 4871 instead of an RFC Editor errata, to ensure that they go through the normal IETF consensus process. Document Quality There is a significant level of deployment of DKIM, as documented by RFC 4871. In fact, the existing deployment and good interoperability is what makes a part of the working group unsure that a clarification of this nature is necessary. Nevertheless, discussion within the working group made it clear to many that there is a significant amount of disagreement as to what was meant in some less-used areas of RFC 4871. The working group believes that these updates will clarify the terminology and improve chances of interoperability among implementations that use those features. Personnel The document shepherd is Barry Leiba, and the responsible area director is Pasi Eronen. _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
