Subject: [ietf-dkim] Milestone dates....

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:57:06 +0000

As discussed in San Diego we need to revisit our milestone
dates. I suggest the following:

Mar 2007	  	WG last call on SSP requirements
May 2007		WG adoption of SSP protocol draft
Jul 2007	  	WG last call on SSP protocol
Nov 2007		WG last call on overview document

And that we progress the ssp-reqs to be an informational
RFC.

I am assuming that we do not want to recharter to include
the authentication results work at this point.

Comments?

Stephen.

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

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:31:07 -0500

> dates. I suggest the following:
...
> And that we progress the ssp-reqs to be an informational

As one of those who weren't there, I'd appreciate it if you could provide some 
information on the rationale for this change.  From what little I know of the 
IETF process, I'd have expected it to change to experimental if it was goint 
to change....

Scott K

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:40:44 +0000

> IETF process, I'd have expected it to change to experimental if it was goint 

Bit of confusion here maybe. We're talking about SSP-reqs being
informational (it doesn't exist in our current charter) but no
change to the goal of a standards track SSP protocol.

We're not currently envisaging any experimental RFCs from this
group.

Stephen.

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:11:19 -0500

On Wednesday 14 February 2007 10:40, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > As one of those who weren't there, I'd appreciate it if you could provide
> > some information on the rationale for this change.  From what little I
> > know of the IETF process, I'd have expected it to change to experimental
> > if it was goint to change....
>
Sorry.  I misread.  I got it now.

Thanks,

Scott K

---

From: Arvel Hathcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:15:49 -0600

> I am assuming that we do not want to recharter
 > to include the authentication results work at this
 > point.

I would be very much in favor of doing auth-results work once SSP is 
done.  So, I'm for it.

Arvel

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:39:34 -0800

On Feb 14, 2007, at 2:15 PM, Arvel Hathcock wrote:

> > I am assuming that we do not want to recharter to include the  
> authentication results work at this point.
>
> I would be very much in favor of doing auth-results work once SSP  
> is done.  So, I'm for it.

One of the security benefits derived from DKIM is not needing to  
trust authentications headers that may not have been added by the MDA.

The work needed is how to properly structure an annotation process at  
the web client or MUA.  I don't this this group should work on either  
effort.

-Doug

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 14:52:55 -0800

>I would be very much in favor of doing auth-results work once SSP is 

I would too, but I think it is too early to recharter. Let's focus on 
SSP requirements, then SSP protocol, then when that seems to be 
winding down/up, we can see if there is enough momentum left to 
recharter for auth-results and any extensions that have popped up in 
the meantime.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Domain Assurance Council
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html