Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] auth header in Montreal agenda, other than base

From: "John R Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 7 Jun 2006 11:34:54 -0400

>> Question (not a suggestion): why is draft-kucherawy-sender-auth-header
>> not on that list? ...

>Well, it's not in our charter, but assuming that the -base discussion
>doesn't take up the entire agenda it seems worthwhile socializing it
>in a pre-re-charter kind of way. I'll note that Auth-res is pretty
>intertwinned with SSP as well.

I hope we can get it un-twined.  The most likely use of the auth
header is so that an MTA can pass along the DKIM info to a MUA that is
one or two hops downstream for sorting.  That shouldn't need to have
anything to do with SSP.

R's,
John

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

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:31:59 -0700

> one or two hops downstream for sorting.  That shouldn't need to have
It doesn't have much to do with SSP, and I don't see the two as being
intertwined.  Absent SSP, Auth-res can only report "pass" or "neutral";
with SSP, it can under some circumstances also report "fail".  I don't
see that as impacting the design of Auth-Res.

-Jim

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 22:31:58 +0100

Murray's work is mentioned in the charter but with re-chartering
as a pre-requisite before it can be adopted. If there's agenda
time left over then I'd have no problem including an agenda
item on Murray's draft. Not sure if that'll be the case this
time however.

If someone wants to claim there're interactions between SSP and
an auth header then I'd have no problem with them wanting to make
that case if there's time and they've written up an I-D (as has
Murray).

Basically, I think we ought be fairly open at this stage when it
comes to ideas as to what does/doesn't belong to a WG version of
SSP (so long as those ideas are presented in I-D form).

Stephen.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:33:49 -0400

> one or two hops downstream for sorting.  That shouldn't need to have

+1

d/
-- 

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 14:41:31 -0700

>> one or two hops downstream for sorting.  That shouldn't need to have

Agreed.  A results header would be independent of DKIM.  There may be  
some general considerations in a BCP paper about the impact of  
signing these types of headers.

-Doug