Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issues status

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 16:08:26 +0000

Folks,

Here's my current issues list. Essentially it just adds
new issues, although some of those have already been
resolved since they were raised. Let me know if I've
missed things or gotten stuff wrong.

I'll update the draft agenda to match this in a bit, so
if you're planning to raise an issue that you want to
be sure hits the agenda, please do so now.

Doug - the issues arising from your mail [1] aren't
included, but will be if you'd like to re-send taking into
account the comments you got.

Stephen.

PS: Eliot - I think this is more or less in-whack with the
rt.psg.com tracker, but if you could check too that'd be
great.

[1] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002552.html

--- Notes

Note that these states were allocated wearing our WG chair hats. If someone
wants to re-open an issue then they need to get two other list participants to
also argue their case.

All OPEN issues for threats-01 and base-00 will be on the agenda in Dallas.

Eliot will create new entires in the tracker for NNNN issues.

Explanation of states used:

PROPOSE REJECT - if no-one objects within a week then this changes to 
                 REJECT, if someone objects it changes to OPEN
REJECT - resolved issue with no changes to be made
OPEN - still up for discussion
ACCEPT - resolved issue with a consensus change yet to be made
DONE - resolved issue with consensus change applied

-- threats issues

1170	 Introduction lacks the introduction of SSP	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	6 weeks ago		6 weeks ago	0
	PROPOSE REJECT no support for change, but no discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001883.html

1171	draft-ietf-dkim-threats-00 Clarification of the DKIM mechanism	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	6 weeks ago		6 weeks ago	0
	I think the title above doesn't match the thread which was "Misstatement of the..." ?
	OPEN got some support, no list opposition, but not included in threats-01
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001907.html

1172	disagreement on impact and probability of Attacks Against Message Signatures	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	6 weeks ago		6 weeks ago	0
	OPEN some discussion, no clear consensus to change or not
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001910.html

1173	Does Section 4.1.4 properly address traceability and accountability?	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	6 weeks ago		6 weeks ago	0
	REJECT no support for change
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001909.html

1174	raft-ietf-dkim-threats-00 Limited information in a critical section	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	6 weeks ago		2 days ago	0
	REJECT no support for change
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001908.html

1180	draft-ietf-dkim-threats-00 DKIM can be effective within the Originator's AdmD	open	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	5 weeks ago		5 weeks ago	0
	REJECT no support for change
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001941.html

1181	Misleading figure in 1.1	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	5 weeks ago		5 weeks ago	0
	PROPOSE REJECT no support for change, editor opposed but no other discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002471.html

1182	Eavesdropping may permit man-in-the-middle as well	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	5 weeks ago		5 weeks ago	0
	PROPOSE REJECT no support for change, no discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002008.html

1186	4.2 needs new Attack Item: Inconsistent Signature vs Policy Attacks	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	5 weeks ago		5 weeks ago	0
	DONE - new SSP attack added to threats-1 (section 4.2.6)
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002015.html

1192	TLD key publication and signing	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	3 weeks ago		3 weeks ago	0
	DONE - new threat added to threats-01 in section 4.1.18
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002152.html

1206	Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed source amplification attacks abuse	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]
	DONE - threats-01 has a new section 4.3.1 just for this.
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002435.html

NNNN	Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust
	[email-masked]
	REJECT - no consenus on this change
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002073.html

1219	A bunch of nits on threats-01 document
	Stephen Farell
	ACCEPT - no real problem closing this
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002485.html

NNNN	threats-01 over prescriptive about key delegation
	Stephen Farell
	ACCEPT - new wording agreed
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002486.html

1220	Include new "known message replay" threat?
	Stephen Farell
	OPEN - no discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002486.html

1222	ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator
	[email-masked]
	OPEN - some discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002495.html

-- base issues

1183	carryover: draft-allman-dkim-base-01.txt - Should we have an r= tag in either the signature or key record	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	5 weeks ago		5 weeks ago	0
	OPEN
	no thread?

1184	carryover: Develop plan for transition of multiple crypto algs (a=)	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	5 weeks ago		5 weeks ago	0
	OPEN - not much discussion of how to transition, though not much disagreement either
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002414.html

1185	carryover: draft-allman-dkim-base-01.txt Transition sha-1 to sha-256	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	5 weeks ago		5 weeks ago	0
	OPEN - not quite closed on the actual exact wording
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002414.html

1190	base-00 3.5 x=	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	3 weeks ago		3 weeks ago	0
	REJECT - change opposed, proposer accepted leaving MUST
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002131.html

1193	base spec: instead of signing the message, sign the hash	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	3 weeks ago		3 weeks ago	0
	OPEN 
	no (recent) thread

1194	base spec: whitespace in signature?	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	3 weeks ago		3 weeks ago	0
	OPEN - not sure if this is the right thread
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002464.html	

1195	draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 - 3.4.6 Example (Canonicalization)	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	2 weeks ago		2 weeks ago	0
	OPEN - no discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002148.html

1196	Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	2 weeks ago		2 weeks ago	0
	OPEN - lots of discussion, no clear closure
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002163.html

1200	MUST vs SHOULD in Verifier Actions section (-base)	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	2 weeks ago		2 weeks ago	0
	OPEN
	not sure which thread

1201	change the syntax from SPF compat to human compat	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	2 weeks ago		2 weeks ago	0
	OPEN
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002219.html

1203	extendable RR records?	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	2 weeks ago		2 weeks ago	0
	ACCEPT - the title of this issue is misleading, its really about extra options to be specified in a DKIM TXT record
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002260.html

1204	issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations	new	dkim	Nobody	0
	[email-masked]	2 weeks ago		2 weeks ago	0
	OPEN - seemed like consensus but no clear change
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002273.html

1215	clarifications on use of l= tag
	Eric Allman
	OPEN - no discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002185.html

1216	signature h= and z= tags
	Hector Santos
	OPEN - little discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002375.html

1222	ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator
	[email-masked]
	OPEN - some discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002495.html

1224	DKIM and mailing lists
	Stephen Farrell
	OPEN - too much discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002534.html

NNNN	bunch of nits for base
	Stephen Farrell
	OPEN - no disussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002615.html

NNNN	some process-problematic references in base
	Stephen Farrell
	OPEN - no discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002616.html

NNNN	base editorial
	Stephen Farrell
	OPEN - no discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002617.html

NNNN	Clarify delegation to 3rd parties
	Stephen Farrell
	OPEN - no discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002618.html

NNNN	selectors and key rollover  
	Stephen Farrell
	OPEN - no discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002619.htmlo

NNNN	512 too short?
	Stephen Farrell
	OPEN - some discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002620.html

NNNN	Why is s= REQUIRED?
	Stephen Farrell
	OPEN - a tiny bit of discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002621.html

NNNN	z= field and EAI wg
	Stephen Farrell
	OPEN - a tiny bit of discussion
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002622.html

-- SSP issues

NNNN	should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?
	Mark Delaney
	REJECT this is a duplicate of 1201
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002219.html

NNNN	should r= be localpart only?
	Mark Delaney
	OPEN
	http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002220.html

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html