Skip to main content

Cryptographic Algorithm and Key Usage Update to DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)
RFC 8301

Yes

(Alexey Melnikov)
(Spencer Dawkins)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
Warren Kumari
(Alia Atlas)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Eric Rescorla)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -04)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2017-09-27 for -04)
-4: "Verifiers MUST verify using rsa-sha256."

Should this say "...MUST be able to..."? That is, am I correct in assuming that a verifier will use the scheme specified by the signer if it is capable of doing so, and that it doesn't make sense to try to verify with rsa-sha256 if the signer used something else?

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2017-09-27 for -04)
Thanks for your response to the SecDir review and addressing the problem in another draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage-04-secdir-lc-nystrom-2017-09-20/

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -04)

                            

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-09-26 for -04)
I would have expected section 4 to be explicit in the interaction between the requirement that "rsa-sha1 MUST NOT be used for signing or verifying" and the Authentication-Results header defined in RFC 7001. In particular, I would have expected to see guidance here whether receipt of a message using sha1 should be coded as "neutral" or "policy": as an implementor, I would be unsure which one to use.

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-09-26 for -04)
Please check and address the feedback provided by the gen-art review (Thanks Jari!). My understanding is that the normative language was discussed in detail for this draft but Jari brought up a point on forward-comparability with future algorithms regarding verification. I would also be interested to at least see a reply to that!

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)