DKIM met twice at IETF-66, on Tuesday for an hour and Wed. for
two hours.
The WG chairs had asked for help from the DNS directorate about
whether or not DKIM needs to define a new RR or is ok to use the
current approach of a TXT record for the public key. The feedback
is that although there's some unhappiness with the TXT approach,
in this case it appears to work. So the WG approach for base will
be to include the TXT record definition and not to define a new
RR for public keys.
The base spec is in WGLC, ending on Friday 21st July. Almost all
issues are closed or should hopefully be closed in a -04 draft
to be posted this week. The main issue remaining is whether or
not the "relaxed" body canonicalization should remain in the
base document or not, where we don't yet have clear consensus.
We plan to try determine that on the list.
We started discussion of SSP which is intended to allow signers
to announce their DKIM related practices. A couple of drafts
exist that outline proposals. Discussion here is just at the very
start and there were some requests that we try to establish
concrete requirements before going futher.
We now have a draft of the DKIM overview document (intended to
be informational) which is also up for discussion.
Stephen & Barry.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html