Domain-Based Email Authentication Using Public Keys Advertised in the DNS (DomainKeys)
RFC 4870

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>,
    RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Domain-based Email Authentication 
         Using Public Keys Advertised in the DNS (DomainKeys)' to 
         Historic 

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Domain-based Email Authentication Using Public Keys Advertised in the 
   DNS (DomainKeys) '
   <draft-delany-domainkeys-base-07.txt> as a Historic

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group. 

The IESG contact person is Russ Housley.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-delany-domainkeys-base-07.txt

Technical Summary

  The DomainKeys protocol is a domain-based, user-transparent, email
  authentication system.  It was developed outside of the IETF process.

  One of the primary goals of DomainKeys was to gain some real-world
  experience that could add value to the DKIM WG effort.

  The DomainKeys specification and the consequential deployment
  experience provided significant input for the DKIM base document, and
  DKIM is essentially an evolved version of DomainKeys.

Working Group Summary

  This document is an individual submission, and it has not been reviewed

  by the DKIM WG.

Protocol Quality

  There are numerous implementations and significant deployment.

  This document was reviewed by Russ Housley for the IESG.

Note to RFC Editor

  Please add a line to the left hand side of the title page header:

    Obsoleted by: XXXX

  And replace "XXXX" with the RFC number assigned to draft-ietf-dkim-base

  once it is approved.

  Also, please publish this document as an RFC at the same time as
  draft-ietf-dkim-base is published as an RFC.  The two RFCs should
  have adjacent RFC numbers.  My preference is for this document to
  have the lower of the two RFC numbers; it was done first.