Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue 1550 - the name of the document (remains open *briefly*); there's still,disagreement on "Author"

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:13:57 -0400

Largely to repeat what I said at the mic, yesterday:

The switch from SSP to ASP was the simplest possible change that modified the 
semantics of the name to be tailored to the From field, as it needs to be.

That said, I think that Pete's desire for an even more precise name, which is 
thereby less subject to any misinterpretation, is worth considering.  I'm not 
sure it's important to change the name further, but I think that considering his 
concern is worthwhile, if only to force us to make sure we have community 
agreement on the nature, scope, whatever of this work:

I take Pete's concern as basically being that the published record is by the 
domain cited in the From field, rather than by the user (full email address.)

He's right.  So ADSP (Author Domain Signing Practices) would be semantically 
better.  Since people are saying "ASP" as letters, rather than a pseudo-word, 
"ADSP" isn't worse in terms of aesthetics.

And as I noted, if folk want the name to be pronounceable, From Domain Signing 
Practices (frodosip) might satisfy the requirement...

d/
-- 

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:32:51 +0000

Thanks Dave, I'd meant to start a timer on this.

Let's say folks have 1 week to suggest new names (without
long essays please, Dave's mail is a good model). The
issue here is solely the name.

After that we'll take a strawpoll as mentioned yesterday.
That'll start on the 19th and run for two weeks, just
to be sure to be sure.

I think a strawpoll where you can +1 all the ones you
like might work (if we've more than 2 or 3 options). Happy
to get feedback on that.

S.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:46:21 -0400

small clarification that I tossed off in the meeting:

I think it's tolerable to stay with ASP.  However I think it would be better to 
have a name that is more careful, per the kind of potential confusion that Pete 
cited (and demonstrated?)

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:53:18 -0700

> cited (and demonstrated?)

I'd be happy to change it back to ssp and ignore this churn altogether.
Remember: each name change == interoperability stopper. There's a lot
more here than just this draft's proper place in a taxonomy.

		Mike

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:07:43 -0400

> I'd be happy to change it back to ssp and ignore this churn altogether.

I wouldn't.  More importantly, I believe the working group achieved consensus on 
the current name.

> Remember: each name change == interoperability stopper. 

I'd be quite interested in seeing your logic-chain to justify that assertion, 
for names on a draft document.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:11:45 -0700

Dave Crocker wrote:
> I wouldn't.  More importantly, I believe the working group achieved 
> consensus on the current name.
> 
> 
> I'd be quite interested in seeing your logic-chain to justify that 
> assertion, for names on a draft document.

It doesn't take much of a logic chain: the label first was _policy. Then 
it was _ssp. Now it's _asp. Tomorrow it might be _frodo. Next day
something else. Each time you change it, implementations break in a
showstopper way.

		Mike

---

From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:47:15 -0400

As the person who originally threw out the suggestion of ADSP on the
list (only half seriously), I agree with Pete. The author does not sign
and the author does not set the policy. It is the domain that is signing
(by virtue of publishing the DNS records, even if the author happens to
sign at the MUA/MSA) and the domain which is expressing the policy.

Mike 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
>Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 2:33 PM
>To: [email-masked]
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue 1550 - the name of the document 
>(remains open *briefly*); there's still,disagreement on "Author"
>
>
>Let's say folks have 1 week to suggest new names (without long 
>essays please, Dave's mail is a good model). The issue here is 
>solely the name.
>
>That'll start on the 19th and run for two weeks, just to be 
>sure to be sure.
>
>I think a strawpoll where you can +1 all the ones you like 
>might work (if we've more than 2 or 3 options). Happy to get 
>feedback on that.
>
>S.
>
>Dave Crocker wrote:
>> The switch from SSP to ASP was the simplest possible change that 
>> modified the semantics of the name to be tailored to the 
>From field, as it needs to be.
>> 
>> That said, I think that Pete's desire for an even more precise name, 
>> which is thereby less subject to any misinterpretation, is worth 
>> considering.  I'm not sure it's important to change the name 
>further, 
>> but I think that considering his concern is worthwhile, if only to 
>> force us to make sure we have community agreement on the 
>nature, scope, whatever of this work:
>> 
>> I take Pete's concern as basically being that the published 
>record is 
>> by the domain cited in the From field, rather than by the user (full 
>> email address.)
>> 
>> He's right.  So ADSP (Author Domain Signing Practices) would be 
>> semantically better.  Since people are saying "ASP" as 
>letters, rather 
>> than a pseudo-word, "ADSP" isn't worse in terms of aesthetics.
>> 
>> And as I noted, if folk want the name to be pronounceable, 
>From Domain 
>> Signing Practices (frodosip) might satisfy the requirement...
>> 
>> d/

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:52:06 -0700

> sign at the MUA/MSA) and the domain which is expressing the policy.

Agreed.  Sloppy terminology has lead to incompatible compliance  
requirements involving restrictions on use of local-part identities.   
The signing domain MUST decide whether the message is compliant with  
their policies BEFORE signing the message.  Verifiers should not  
attempt to second guess whether a domain's signature means the message  
is compliant with their policy or not!

Reliance upon a signing domain's stewardship MUST NOT occur when the  
message is signed using a restricted key (intended for untrustworthy  
individuals or systems) that also includes an identity not found  
within the From header.  Whether or not the domain also publishes  
policy SHOULD NOT affect how these restricted key messages should be  
treated.  Such messages should not benefit from the reputation of the  
domain, but might benefit from the reputation of the identity,  
although such benefits are likely only appreciated by individual  
recipients.

-Doug

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:06:29 -0400

> something else. Each time you change it, implementations break in a

Your argument appears to be that people who implement Internet-Drafts should 
have sway over the ability to change those drafts.

That argument is not without precedent, but it almost never is acceptable to the 
working group to let that narrow installed base dictate working group choices.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:17:52 -0700

Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>> It doesn't take much of a logic chain: the label first was _policy. 
>> Then it was _ssp. Now it's _asp. Tomorrow it might be _frodo. Next day
> Your argument appears to be that people who implement Internet-Drafts 
> should have sway over the ability to change those drafts.

Hold sway != have a say. I think that people who have some
skin in the game should be considered carefully. What I read
here is dismissal (= "hold sway").

> That argument is not without precedent, but it almost never is 
> acceptable to the working group to let that narrow installed base 
> dictate working group choices.

Dave. My irritation here is that it doesn't seem to even be on anybody's
radar that you are breaking implementations utterly and completely.
Doing that is devaluing running code which last time I checked counts
for something. I'd really like to deploy something for the reflector,
but this silly last minute name changing makes that all pointless.

		Mike

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:30:20 -0400

> here is dismissal (= "hold sway").
...

> but this silly last minute name changing makes that all pointless.

You originally posited dire consequences that changing a name broke a service. 
I pointed that there is no service, from the standpoint of the IETF.  That some 
folk are pursuing proprietary activities is entirely fine.  That they base those 
proprietary efforts on unstable public documents is also fine.  What is not fine 
is the view that their private efforts should have any meaningful effect on 
group consensus to make improvements in the drafts.

Basically, I believe you are confusing the benefit of getting data from 
prototypes, versus the more extensive damage done by changing an installed 
global service.

That said, of course, group consensus is group consensus.  Demonstrate that 
there is group consensus about the real damage done by the current effort to 
change the name and, well, group consensus rules...

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:32:10 -0700

Wietse Venema wrote:
> Michael Thomas:
> Gentlemen, let's focus on getting it right for future deployment,
> and not on maintaining continuity with temporary experiments.

How much in the future are we talking about? I don't believe this week
bizness; there's wg last call, ietf last call and however many telechats
and DISCUSS's the iesg throws our way. That's at least 6 months in my
experience and for _what_? That the internal label of a DNS query be
consistent with the name of the document? What an utterly pointless and
bureaucratic impediment to getting some real life experience.

		Mike

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:46:31 -0700

Dave Crocker wrote:
> You originally posited dire consequences that changing a name broke a 
> service. I pointed that there is no service, from the standpoint of the 
> IETF.  That some folk are pursuing proprietary activities is entirely 
> fine.  That they base those proprietary efforts on unstable public 
> documents is also fine.  What is not fine is the view that their private 
> efforts should have any meaningful effect on group consensus to make 
> improvements in the drafts.

I didn't "posit", I *experienced*.

> prototypes, versus the more extensive damage done by changing an 
> installed global service.

Dave: did you even know that this was an issue until I pointed it out?
Instead of getting all defensive about legalistic interpretations of
whether you have the absolute right to change anything you feel like
changing, you might consider the good will of companies and developers
who look at this kind of gratuitous last minute completely incompatible
changes with complete disbelief that the standards potato people haven't
got a clue about real life again.

		Mike

---

From: [email-masked] (Wietse Venema)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 18:24:40 -0400 (EDT)

Wietse

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:12:06 -0700

Since we decided to change SSP to ASP to be more precise (thereby 
breaking the existing implementations out there, which Dave seems to 
think are irrelevant, Mike seems to think are critical, and I think 
are somewhere in between), I'm in favor of making one more change (my 
preference: ADSP), but then to freeze it, absolutely and completely.

Dave seems to be forgetting that early implementations of drafts are 
a good way to get practical feedback into the process --- it's more 
than a gedanken experiment.  Mike seems to forget that these /are/ 
drafts, and drafts do (and should) change.

eric

---

From: [email-masked] (Wietse Venema)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:27:55 -0400 (EDT)

> drafts, and drafts do (and should) change.

I can live with ADSP.

	Wietse

---

From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:47:02 -0400

After reading Wietse's comment I'm wondering if (taking the long view)
we should consider calling it Administrative Domain Signing Policy.
While the only Administrative Domain currently signing would be the
author domain, it's clear that there is a certain amount of community
interest in revisiting 3rd party signatures at a later point.

I don't feel overly strongly about this, just something that came to
mind while reading the thread.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 6:25 PM
To: Michael Thomas
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue 1550 - the name of the document (remains
open *briefly*); there's still,disagreement on "Author"

	Wietse

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 23:20:02 -0400

> drafts, and drafts do (and should) change.

Hi, Eric.  Welcome back.

 > installed global service.

which seems to acknowledge explicitly what you are saying I was forgetting.  It 
was certainly meant to.

Simply extending the logic at work against change, here, serves to mandate 
absolutely no changes, as soon as anyone has written a single line of code. 
Since I suspect no one really means that, what is missing is the offering for 
how this particular change has an impact that really is as disastrous as is 
being claimed.

Lest it be forgotten, the motivating text for this sub-thread was:
Michael Thomas wrote:
 >   Each time you change it, implementations break in a
 > showstopper way.

Now perhaps it registers differently with you, but I'd class that language as 
dire.  And it is about a working group draft that has just recently undergone 
massive change.  (Just how recent that change occurred is yet another item that 
seems to be getting forgotten.)

Perhaps we can ratchet down the hyperbole and return to the reasoned 
consideration we have recently been enjoying in the working group?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "J D Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:00:03 -0400

Stephen Farrell wrote:

> I think a strawpoll where you can +1 all the ones you like might work
> (if we've more than 2 or 3 options). Happy to get feedback on that.

Sounds good from here, so long as it really can be resolved in a week.

At present I mildly prefer ADSP over FroDoSigPo, because "author domain"
will encourage people's brains to engage to figure out WTF an "author"
is.  Either way, though, the non-IETF people who'll actually be relying
on this stuff will be about equally confused.

---

From: "J D Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:52:35 -0400

Mike Thomas kvetched:

>  Dave. My irritation here is that it doesn't seem to even be on
> anybody's radar that you are breaking implementations utterly and
> completely.

Are there any current implementations of asp in the wild?

And, more importantly, are there any current implementations by anyone
who isn't on this mailing list?

If there aren't, you're just wasting everyone's time with this pointless
argument.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:15:21 -0400

> on this stuff will be about equally confused.

As the one who suggested Frodo*, albeit initial merely for some humor, I'll note 
that I think public usage, outside the IETF, frowns on such whimsy and that the 
name needs to be simpler and more grounded.

So far, my own reading of postings is a very strong agreement for ADSP.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:16:20 -0700

> Are there any current implementations of asp in the wild?

Yes.

> who isn't on this mailing list?

Yes.

> If there aren't, you're just wasting everyone's time with this pointless

Now what.

		Mike

---

From: "J D Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:26:42 -0400

Sigh.  It shouldn't be necessary to ask this.

>> Are there any current implementations of asp in the wild?

Where?

>> who isn't on this mailing list?

Where?

>> If there aren't, you're just wasting everyone's time with this
>> pointless argument.
> 
> Now what.

Now you're just wasting everyone's time.  I expected better from you.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:37:05 -0400

>> who isn't on this mailing list?

Please document them.

Please encourage their owners to express their own concerns over proposed changes.

That we we can relieve you of the burden of seeming to represent a 
significant-but-silent constituency that is asserting the disagreements you cite.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:42:42 -0700

> Now you're just wasting everyone's time.  I expected better from you.

I answered your questions and I'm wasting everybody's time? Oh I get it,
it was rhetorical. Who's wasting everybody's time here?

		Mike

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:46:22 -0700

>>> who isn't on this mailing list?

Considering that you don't even believe that changing the DNS label
breaks interoperability, I'll pass on another pointless exercise.

		Mike

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:58:54 -0400

> it was rhetorical. Who's wasting everybody's time here?

You provided responses but not answers.  There was nothing helpful about your 
responses, so the distinction is important.

> breaks interoperability, I'll pass on another pointless exercise.

You made dire assertions of current breakage.  Two of us have asked you to 
document them.

You have declined this entirely normal request for detail (substantiation).

The only reasonable working group choice for handling of this is, therefore, to 
ignore the assertion.

The only alternative is to take your assertion as coming from a sole source of 
authority on the matter.

Working groups tend to be poor venues for appeals to authority.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 07:43:19 -0700

> issue here is solely the name.
Just for the sake of being thorough, I'm going to cite a tiny concern 
with ADSP and something that might address that concern.

"Author Domain Signing Practices" can be parsed a couple of ways.  It 
could be (Author Domain) Signing Practices [the intended meaning] or 
Author (Domain Signing) Practices.  Of course, this protocol does not 
describe which authors sign domains (whatever that means).

Proposed alternative:  Signing Practices of Author Domains (SPAD).  It's 
even something you can pronounce, if that matters.

-Jim

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:16:20 -0700

Dave Crocker wrote:
> You provided responses but not answers.  There was nothing helpful about 
> your responses, so the distinction is important.
> 
> 
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>> Dave Crocker wrote:
>>> Please document them.
>>
> You made dire assertions of current breakage.  Two of us have asked you 
> to document them.

I did document them, and you promptly shifted the goal post. Sorry, I'm
not playing along with this stupid game.

Gad, this is surreal. I'm asking for some consideration about backward
compatibility and spec stability. For it, I'm getting a barrage of ad
hominem attacks. Who else in their right mind would want to be on the
receiving end of this ridiculous bullying?

		Mike

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:27:48 -0700

Dave Crocker wrote:
> The only alternative is to take your assertion as coming from a sole 
> source of authority on the matter.
> 

I'd like the chairs to clarify whether treating a working group like
a debating club is appropriate. I gave my experience as an
implementor in good faith. What Dave is saying here is that I'm
either incompetent, lying, or otherwise an unreliable source. I do
not see why such a person attack is an appropriate response as
it serves to drag the working group into the mud. Manifestly.

		Mike

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:58:33 +0000

Michael Thomas wrote:
> Gad, this is surreal. 

Yes it is. So let's all stop it.

Please only continue posting on this thread if you have another
name to suggest.

Stephen.

---

From: "J D Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:07:07 -0400

> I'd like the chairs to clarify whether treating a working group like a
> debating club is appropriate. I gave my experience as an implementor
> in good faith.

I'd be likely to agree with you that existing usage should be preserved,
but in my experience there is no existing usage.  You state that there
is existing usage, but refuse to say where.  

In the midst of the conversation, there's also been some frustration
expressed.  That may not have been necessary.

Have I accurately characterized the conversation thus far?

Given this exchange, what do you expect will happen?

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:14:31 +0000

Michael Thomas wrote:
> a debating club is appropriate. 

Clearly not. But there's more than one sinner.

I suggest calming down.

Stephen.

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:31:57 -0700

I don't see your acknowledgement as being an acknowledgement of the 
topic that Mike was talking about.  When you break existing 
implementations, even those implementations are of a draft version, 
you do create problems for the people who are volunteering to live on 
the bleeding edge --- and tend to be the best people to give you 
practical feedback.  There should be a good reason for this.  Perhaps 
we have a good reason here, perhaps not.  But I heard you say on 
Monday that implementations of drafts should not be a consideration 
on how to proceed.  I disagree --- it should be a consideration.  Not 
as big a consideration as Mike believes, perhaps, but a consideration 
none the less.

eric

--On March 11, 2008 11:20:02 PM -0400 Dave Crocker <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

>
>
> Eric Allman wrote:
>
>> Dave seems to be forgetting that early implementations of drafts
>> are  a good way to get practical feedback into the process ---
>> it's more  than a gedanken experiment.  Mike seems to forget that
>> these /are/  drafts, and drafts do (and should) change.
>
>
> Hi, Eric.  Welcome back.
>
> which seems to acknowledge explicitly what you are saying I was
> forgetting.  It was certainly meant to.
>
> Simply extending the logic at work against change, here, serves to
> mandate absolutely no changes, as soon as anyone has written a
> single line of code. Since I suspect no one really means that, what
> is missing is the offering for how this particular change has an
> impact that really is as disastrous as is being claimed.
>
> Now perhaps it registers differently with you, but I'd class that
> language as dire.  And it is about a working group draft that has
> just recently undergone massive change.  (Just how recent that
> change occurred is yet another item that seems to be getting
> forgotten.)
>
> Perhaps we can ratchet down the hyperbole and return to the
> reasoned consideration we have recently been enjoying in the
> working group?
>
> d/

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 13:58:20 -0700

> as big a consideration as Mike believes, perhaps, but a consideration 

I'm only asking for it to be *a* consideration. I'm pretty convinced
the people debating these name changes were clueless about the
interoperability implications and that this isn't _just_ an
editorial change. Did that really require a debating team response
that I need to back up my assertions and document each and every
developer who's contacted me? It's just a simple fact. Sheesh.

		Mike, and no i'm not going to name names as I
		 don't know if that's ok with them
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:09:34 +0000

Please. Let's not prolong this. I hope Mike doesn't answer
you.

Stephen.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:11:31 +0000

Michael Thomas wrote:
> I'm only asking for it to be *a* consideration. 

It is. But I don't see anyone else having such a problem with this.
If they do, they should speak up.

 > I'm pretty convinced

That kind of statement is not helpful.

Stephen.

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:19:39 -0700

> That kind of statement is not helpful.

Hello? Why? You mean it's out of line for me to point out that people
might not have appreciated the full implications of what they were
arguing about?

::boggle::

		Mike

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:30:41 -0700

> we should consider calling it Administrative Domain Signing Policy.

+2^n-1.

While I'm at it, I also like FroDo. I think whimsy is underrated, and  
it is not even a forced contraction. FroDo contracting "from domain"  
is just fine. But since we're going to be drab, this particular nym  
for the acro of ADSP is I think best.

	Jon

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:03:22 -0700

> So far, my own reading of postings is a very strong agreement for  

Agree as well, where A could mean Author's Domain, as policy is  
referenced from the domain used in the From header.  Mike Hammer's  
suggestion for Administrative Domain may help prevent overly  
constrained compliance definitions as well, but either would be  
acceptable.

-Doug

---

From: "Al Iverson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:38:18 -0400

>  not playing along with this stupid game.

Wow, indeed it is. Did you bring anything here with you, other than
your sword and anger?

You may have come ill equipped and incomplete. Might I recommend
stepping back for a bit, if so?

Regards,
Al Iverson

-- 
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com   --   Chicago, IL, USA
Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:58:22 -0700

> stepping back for a bit, if so?

ok, that's it.

goodbye, and thanks for all the fish.

	Mike

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 Mar 2008 03:20:24 -0000

> Hello? Why? You mean it's out of line for me to point out that
> people might not have appreciated the full implications of what they
> were arguing about?

Based on the discussion I listened to in the DKIM session, I am
confident that people who proposed changing the name of SSP are fully
aware that slightly more than zero effort would be required to change
record names from _ssp to _frodo or whatever, and perhaps even a
slight additional amount of effort would be needed to publish and
check both old and new names for a few weeks while people catch up.

---

From: Mark Delany <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:13:29 -0700

> check both old and new names for a few weeks while people catch up.

Might I also add that we agreed to a totally incompatible change from  
DomainKeys to DKIM in the interest of harmonizing the final standard  
even though the *installed based* was/is quite large.

In that light, I'm interested in understanding why breaking  
DomainKeys for non-technical reasons was ok, yet breaking an _ssp  
draft with a relatively miniscule adoption rate is less than ok.

Put another way, we had a bunch of working code that the IETF threw  
away. Why is our working code less important that the _ssp working code?

Mark.

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 02:26:50 -0400

> away. Why is our working code less important that the _ssp working code?

And to add to the chaos,

There are two open source API, sendmail's mfilter DKIM/SSP API and 
ALTN's fine windows DKIM/SSP library.   Even Arvel somewhere in within 
the source code or read me file indicated some level of confidence in 
the stability with SSP-01 and he believed, including myself, there would 
little technical changes from this point on.    It with this level of 
understanding, in what is otherwise is otherwise a very complex and 
costly implementation effort, that we began take the system more serious.

This SSP work represented over 2 years work in the WG and we had finally 
come to some level of understanding for SSP.

No one expected such a complete breakdown and take over by the ASP 
members, people, I don't mind saying, NEVER, absolutely NEVER had any 
belief in SSP since the git-go.

But all of sudden, just when it appeared we were at some technical 
comfort level for serious DKIM support, including beginning prpduct 
marketing efforts and promoting it with our customer base,  BANG, it was 
throw out and replaced with a NON-VETTED proposal by people who have 
have an unfortunate propensity to shut out, shut up, block out any 
opposition.

Whatever was right or wrong, if ASP made any sense whatsoever, that 
would be one thing, but it doesn't.  Its terrible and how it was done 
leave a bitter taste on the IETF process with the chairs beaten down and 
forced to allow it to happen.  The fact that SSP assimilate what was 
essentially borderline plagiarized stripped down version, shocked common 
sense and ethics.

On a related note, just consider this Deployment Draft statement that 
when a receiver system does not have an Reputation process in place, it 
SHOULD view signed mail as unsigned.  Go Figure. It boggles the mind.

In any case, with the offline cursing email at me by a certain member of 
the ASP group and the complete take over of this WG by ASP group  I'm 
sorry to say, but I wouldn't be true to myself if I didn't say you ASP 
people should be ashame of yourselves.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:03:17 -0400

On naming conventions
Since there is ssp tags in the wild, the asp changes seemed reasonable
for various definitions of reasonable why not keep the name ssp and
avoid poking sticks at dns admins who (rightly so) don't want to
implement anything new until 60+ % of the user base has already done it.
In small shops that may not be much of an issue. In larger shops it can
be. Adopt the asp changes, leave the dns tag alone.
My 2 cents

Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
404-847-6397

---

From: Steve Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:42:03 -0700

> be. Adopt the asp changes, leave the dns tag alone.

If the meaning has changed then admins will probably need to
change any record contents anyway, or at least look at what they have
and decide whether it's still appropriate. That seems far more
onerous to any existing users of older drafts than the detail of
changing the record name.

Cheers,
   Steve

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 21:13:16 -0700

Sorry I missed this earlier.

Given the acronym, I feel an overwhelming compulsion to shoot the suggestion 
down.  (Or am I mis-remembering the british WWI fighter?)

In spite of that, I like it.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 09:53:22 +0100

Dave Crocker wrote:
 
> (Or am I mis-remembering the british WWI fighter?)

A British Spitfire (WWII), or a French SPAD (WWI).

>> Signing Practices of Author Domains (SPAD).  It's 

en.wikipedia 
ADSP  14 hits, incl. Appletalk Data Stream Protocol
SPAD 197 hits, Société Pour l'Aviation et ses Dérivés

Google hits:  450,000 (ADSP) vs. 1,800,000 (SPAD)

There was supposed to be a poll, can we please start
that now ?  Or roll a dice for ASP, ADSP, SPAD. 

 Frank

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:04:12 -0700

On Mar 15, 2008, at 1:53 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>
> There was supposed to be a poll, can we please start that now ?  Or  
> roll a dice for ASP, ADSP, SPAD.

ADSP

-Doug

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:56:41 -0400

> that now ?  Or roll a dice for ASP, ADSP, SPAD. 

<chair>
You'll recall, perhaps, that Stephen said we'd discuss it until the 19th 
  (that's tomorrow), and then take a poll.  So far, from the discussion, 
I see overwhelming support for "ADSP" (and I'm soooo saaaaad that you 
folks didn't eat up my "FroDo" idea (which DC and I both claim, so we 
can have a pub fight in Dublin about that)).
</chair>

<chair>
To Mike Thomas's concern: I'm sympathetic to the desire not to "keep" 
changing it, and I note that the proposal is that if we decide to change 
it, it will be the last change.
</chair>

<participant>
We should consider, in our last day before the poll, whether to 
de-couple the DNS name from the document name.  Perhaps a final change 
of the DNS name to, say, _SigningPractice would be suitable, and that 
would insulate us from any changes to the document.
</participant>

<chair>
During the discussion of Mike's concern, there were a few messages that 
were unnecessarily combative (on both sides of the discussion).  It's my 
declaration that that has stopped now.  It's my hope that that won't 
happen again.  I don't have time to watch this mailing list on a 
minute-to-minute basis, but I will get back to you if I see that sort of 
thing cropping up again.  We remain polite and respectful here.  We WILL 
start pursuing process-related remedies if things get nasty.  Please do 
remain respectful -- we all have a lot of work to do, and we all get a 
bit chafed sometimes.
</chair>

Poll starts tomorrow.

Barry

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:59:20 -0700

> would insulate us from any changes to the document.

Interesting suggestion, but...

When someone specifies a signing practice for the Sender: field (e.g., for 
mailing lists), what will the node name be in the DNS?

Names should be specific, in order to anticipate additional names. 
"SigningPractice" is pretty darn general.

In addition, there is some human factors benefit for administrators to have the 
name of the mechanism be the same as the value for a technical string.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "J D Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 12:33:23 -0400

> "SigningPractice" is pretty darn general.

Yep.  I forsee Non-Author Signing Practices in the not-too-distant
future, and we haven't yet started arguing over whether those fit in the
same record.

(This is not a request to start that argument, BTW.)

--
J.D. Falk
Receiver Products
Return Path