Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issues list

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 14:48:40 +0100

Folks,

Can you go through the issues list [1] and check that it matches
your concept of where we are with the base document.

In order to get a WG last call on this document soon, we're
going to have to start closing these one-by-one.

In particular, if there are ones that can already be closed
can you say so on the list. I don't think Eliot's checked
against the latest base draft though he has updated the issue
detail to reflect list discussion.

Thanks,
Stephen.

PS: We have a jabber slot penciled in for Thursday. I think
we can just start at the start of the issues list and go for
an hour and see what we get done (always modulo later list
consensus of course).

[1] 
https://rt.psg.com/Search/Results.html?Order=ASC&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'dkim'%20AND%20(Status%20%3D%20'open'%20OR%20Status%20%3D%20'new')&Rows=50&OrderBy=id&Format=

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:04:45 +0100

Someone asked about access. I think you use an ietf/ietf account
if you've not one of your own.

Cheers,
Stephen.

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 07:33:18 -0700

> detail to reflect list discussion.

Stephen -- many of these are closed, but you have to look at Eliot's
capture of the discussions inside the ticket. I haven't gone through
every one, but there hasn't been much discussion to the contrary from
the meeting in Dallas.

       Mike

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 15:37:52 +0100

> every one, but there hasn't been much discussion to the contrary from

Yes. I'm asking that folks do that for the ones they know/care about
and let us know if there are any discrepancies or else confirm
that the resolution of such-and-such an issue is in fact applied
in the current I-D.

Eliot has been understandably reluctant to CLOSE issues, but
has generally marked them as ACCEPTED pending confirmation that
consensus text has appeared in the I-D.

Stephen.

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 10:28:31 -0700

Stephen, can you clarify what the time is tomorrow? And the server to 
use again?

thx, Mike

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 11:58:56 -0700

According to my notes, following is the issues status from Dallas:

1183 (r= tag in signature or key record): Remains open.  My notes say 
"ACTION: Doug Otis will argue for r= in the mail address, Phil 
[Paul?] Hoffman will argue against"

1184 (multiple crypto transition): Mark D was going to provide text 
for a discussion of how to choose a signature.

1185 (sha1 vs sha256): I was going to provide wording.  That's in my 
-02b draft (i.e., it hasn't been published yet).

1193 (separate body and header hashes): Done in -02b.

1194 (whitespace in signature): was done before Dallas.

1195 (typos and examples): done in -02b.

1196 (upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks): 
remains open.  Full text of my notes reads: "EKR: verifier choice 
what algճ to accept, regardless of signer preference.  Russ: signer 
should state what gets used, verifier should choose.  Status: remains 
open (are they going to write up their positions?)."

1200 (MUST vs SHOULD in verifier actions): Done in -02b.

1201 (change syntax from SPF notation to human): Redirected to SSP 
discussion.

1204 (DKIM "simple" header canon vs milter): Closed --- MTA 
implementation issue, not a protocol issue.

1216 (decouple signature h= and z=): Done (I hope) in -02b.

1217 (SSP syntax): not part of -base (looks similar to 1201).

1221/1222 (ABNF: Sender = Originator/Operator): moved to -threats; 
Dave C has some action on this, probably to provide wording.

1224 (DKIM and Mailing Lists): Open --- we ran out of time.

1226 (512 bit keys too short): Done in -02b.

1227 (nits for base): Done in -02b.

1229 (z= and EAI WG): Closed/Pending.  Paul H to act as liaison.

1230 (selectors and key rollover): Closed; it's a BCP issue not a 
spec issue.

1231 (process-problematic references in base): discussed, but it 
remains open.

1236 (Analyzing failures: list of possible reasons): -02b addresses 
some of this, but perhaps does not go far enough, so it remains open.

--- The following were not on the list in Dallas and hence remain 
open:

1235 (threats-01 over prescriptive about key delegation).

1255 (optional exponent needed?).

1258 (using v= in -base-01 and forwards).

1263 (get rid of x=): I /think/ this has been resolved.

1264 (proposed fingerprint tag description).

1265 (signing by parent domains).

1266 (sec 5.2 move recommendations for key retention to a BCP).

1267 (expiry based on received time rather than current time).

1268 (format of t=).

1269/1270 (body length mechanism rejections).

1271 (binary algorithms and algorithm spoofing during a transition).

1272 (when i= domain != d= domain).

1274 (r= for instilling good domain-name practices).

--- Following in my notes from Dallas, but not in the issues list:

N001 (clarify delegation to 3rd parties).  Stephen Farrell.  See 
<http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002618.html>.

N002 (base editorial).  Stephen Farrell. 
<http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002617.html>.

N004 (x= and clock skew).  EKR.  No reference.  "Guidance about what 
happens in the case of clock skew."

N005 (editorial comments).  EKR.  No reference.  I think he was going 
to send me something, but I either didn't get it or have misplaced it.

eric

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:43:58 +0100

Hi Michael,

Sure. See the attached. Everything's the same other than the
date and agenda.

S.

>> https://rt.psg.com/Search/Results.html?Order=ASC&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'dkim'%20AND%20(Status%20%3D%20'open'%20OR%20Status%20%3D%20'new')&Rows=50&OrderBy=id&Format= 

Subject: [ietf-dkim] jabber meeting announce - April 20th, 1600 (Dublin)
From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
To: ietf-dkim <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 18:17:31 +0100
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>

Folks,

We're going to schedule our first "formal" jabber meeting
slot for two weeks from today, on April 20 at 1600 here
(Dublin), i.e. 1100 EST, 0800 PST and something terrible
for most people not in Europe or the US (sorry). The meeting
will (nominally) last for one hour.

The agenda will be to attempt to resolve (modulo confirmation
on the list) one or maybe two base- issues from the list.

We'll nominate specific issues a few days ahead of time
depending on what's been happening on the list.  Remember
though, that for the first meeting, we're not going to be
ambitious - starting slowly seems better.

If this is a problem for you, let me know. If there are
enough problems we'll put it back to the following week.

Meanwhile you can try out jabber any time since the
meeting rooms used during the IETF meeting seem to still
be available (and I can see a few folks have been in).

Our meeting room is therefore:

[email-masked]

with logs at:

http://www.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/[email-masked]/

Getting through firewalls may, or may not, be easy for you.
I've had to play about a bit and still haven't sorted out
access from all of the different networks from which I might
possibly attend.

Regards,
Stephen.

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 13:43:13 -0700

I'm getting "502: Service Unavailable" when I try to join 
[email-masked].

eric

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:00:29 -0700

>[email-masked]

Nope, it's [email-masked] (they got rid of "rooms.").

>[email-masked].

Dave Crocker and I seem to be in on [email-masked] at the moment.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:07:49 -0700

> [email-masked].

haven't the ieft jabber rooms been moved to @jabber.ietf.org?

d/

-- 

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 14:17:46 -0700

Yep, that's the trick.  Thanks.  Other DKIMers, take note.

eric

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 11:20:25 +0100

Thanks Eric,

For the purposes of jabbering (assuming we get going with no
glitches) I suggest we only cover issues still open according
to this list. (BTW: I've asked Eliot to merge this list and
his and formally close whatever's closed on both, yell if that's
a problem.)

S.

Eric Allman wrote:
> "ACTION: Doug Otis will argue for r= in the mail address, Phil [Paul?] 
> Hoffman will argue against"
> 
> 1184 (multiple crypto transition): Mark D was going to provide text for 
> a discussion of how to choose a signature.
> 
> remains open.  Full text of my notes reads: "EKR: verifier choice what 
> algճ to accept, regardless of signer preference.  Russ: signer should 
> state what gets used, verifier should choose.  Status: remains open (are 
> they going to write up their positions?)."
> 
> 1221/1222 (ABNF: Sender = Originator/Operator): moved to -threats; Dave 
> C has some action on this, probably to provide wording.
> 
> 1230 (selectors and key rollover): Closed; it's a BCP issue not a spec 
> issue.
> 
> 1231 (process-problematic references in base): discussed, but it remains 
> open.
> 
> 1236 (Analyzing failures: list of possible reasons): -02b addresses some 
> of this, but perhaps does not go far enough, so it remains open.
> 
> --- The following were not on the list in Dallas and hence remain open:
> 
> N005 (editorial comments).  EKR.  No reference.  I think he was going to 
> send me something, but I either didn't get it or have misplaced it.
> 
> eric
>