Subject: [Sandbox-mailoutput] [Django development] Internal WG Review: DKIM Crypto Update (dcrup)

From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:31:38 -0700

The attached message would have been sent, but the tracker is in development mode.
It was not sent to anybody.

Subject: Internal WG Review: DKIM Crypto Update (dcrup)
From: IETF Secretariat <[email-masked]>
To: "The IESG" <[email-masked]>, "The IAB" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:31:38 -0700

A new IETF WG is being considered in the IETF. The draft charter for this
WG is provided below for your review and comment.

Review time is one week.

The IETF Secretariat

DKIM Crypto Update (dcrup)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current status: Proposed WG

Chairs:
  TBD

Assigned Area Director:
  Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>

Applications and Real-Time Area Directors:
  Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
  Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
  Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>

Technical advisors:
  Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
 
Mailing list:
  Address: [email-masked]
  To subscribe: http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
  Archive: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/

Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dcrup/

The DKIM Crypto Update (DCRUP) Working Group is chartered to update
DKIM to handle more modern cryptographic algorithms and key sizes. DKIM
(RFC 6376) signatures include a tag that identifies the hash algorithm
and
signing algorithm used in the signature. The only current algorithm is
RSA,
with advice that signing keys should be between 1024 and 2048 bits.
While
1024 bit signatures are common, longer signatures are not because bugs
in
DNS provisioning software prevent publishing longer keys as DNS TXT
records.

DCRUP will consider three types of changes to DKIM: additional signing
algorithms such as those based on elliptic curves, changes to key
strength advice and requirements, and new public key forms, such as
putting the public key in the signature and a hash of the key in the
DNS.  It will limit itself to existing implemented algorithms and key
forms. Other changes to DKIM, such as new message canonicalization
schemes, are out of scope.  The WG will as far as possible avoid
changes incompatible with deployed DKIM signers and verifiers.

Milestones: