Subject: [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 09:11:08 +0100

Folks,

We don't seem to be converging on this on the list, though I
also think that the recent (and quite good) debate should
mean that a lot of folks can express informed opinions.

So Barry & I would like to do a strawpoll to see if there is
in fact rough consensus one way or the other.

Your question for this week is therefore:

Should we keep or remove text below?

(from 4.2.2 of draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-03, but please be sure you
check the context before expressing an opinion)

    3.  _Try Parent Domain._ The host MUST query DNS for a TXT record for
        the immediate parent domain, prefixed with "_asp._domainkey."  If
        the result of this query is anything other than a "NOERROR"
        response with a valid ASP record, the algorithm terminates with a
        result indicating that no ASP record was present.  If the ASP "t"
        tag exists in the response and any of the flags is "s"
        (indicating it does not apply to a subdomain), the algorithm also
        terminates without finding an ASP record.  Otherwise, use that
        record.

Please just answer "keep" or "remove" in this thread, and use a
different subject line for any discussion. I'll summarise results
back to the list in one week from today (after May 8th).

Since 5016 section 4.2 does (though admittedly somewhat vaguely)
call for inclusion of the feature, we think a close call should
come down in favour of keeping it in.

If the consensus is for removal, then we can separately discuss what,
if anything, should go into the security considerations section that
covers the issue. Actually, even keeping it in, we should probably
add some new sec. cons. text derived from the recent discussion, but
let's see if we've consensus first.

Thanks,
Stephen & Barry.

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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 14:05:43 +0200

Keep.

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 07:16:16 -0700

Remove.

-Doug

---

From: Steve Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 07:57:50 -0700

>        terminates without finding an ASP record.  Otherwise, use that

remove.

Cheers,
   Stve

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 08:09:16 -0700

Remove.

It does not enhance security.

It invents new DNS semantics and works poorly.

It is strictly for the administrative convenience of a minority of domain owners.

It adds permanent overhead to the protocol but will rarely provide any benefit.

d/

ps. As Steve Atkins noted, it also does not work properly.
-- 

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

---

From: John Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: 1 May 2008 14:14:40 -0000

remove

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 08:32:49 -0700

> Please just answer "keep" or "remove" in this thread, and use a

The word "remove" triggers a catch in the mailing list software that thinks 
the message might be list administration (like remove from mailing list.)

I suggest folks instead say "delete".

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: "Daniel Dreymann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 08:49:16 -0700

Remove/Delete. 

~Daniel

--
Daniel T. Dreymann
CEO & Co-Founder
Goodmail Systems, Inc.

---

From: Arvel Hathcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 10:53:55 -0500

Delete is fine.

-- 
Arvel

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 18:19:05 +0200

delete

---

From: "Siegel, Ellen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:53:04 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> 

I vote to remove.

Ellen

---

From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:59:53 -0400

Delete

> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 4:11 AM
> To: ietf-dkim
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll
> 
> 
> Folks,
>

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 16:35:40 +0100

Dave Crocker wrote:
> The word "remove" triggers a catch in the mailing list software that 
> thinks the message might be list administration (like remove from 
> mailing list.)

Oops. Mea culpa.

> I suggest folks instead say "delete".

Good catch,
Thanks,
S.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 13:07:13 -0400

Delete

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] on behalf of MH Michael Hammer (5304)
Sent: Thu 5/1/2008 11:59 AM
To: Stephen Farrell; ietf-dkim
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] subdomain strawpoll
 
Delete

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 17:07:12 +0000

Remove

> Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 09:11:08 +0100
> From: [email-masked]
> To: [email-masked]

_________________________________________________________________
In a rush? Get real-time answers with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_realtime_042008

---

From: "Al Iverson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 12:57:08 -0500

Delete

Regards,
Al

-- 
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: "J D Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 17:06:10 -0400

Delete.  Quickly.  Don't look back.

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 16:31:03 -0700

Keep.

-Jim

---

From: [email-masked] (Wietse Venema)
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 20:23:30 -0400 (EDT)

Delete. And bury six foot deep, so that it won't come out again.

	Wietse

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 20:46:44 -0700

delete

---

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 11:11:07 +0100

> Should we keep or remove text below?

Keep (but in a separate BCP draft/section - see separate thread)

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Jeff Macdonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 16:25:02 -0400

remove

-- 
:: Jeff Macdonald | Director of Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | [email-masked]
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118
:: www.e-dialog.com

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 16:58:13 -0700

keep.

-- 
Mike Markley <[email-masked]>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 13:42:14 -0700

Keep

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 10:07:16 +0100

So, by my count that was 16 for removal and 6 for keeping.

That looks to me like sufficient consensus to remove the feature
from the next rev of the I-D and putting in some text in the
security considerations. I assume the editors of the draft can
craft some text for that based on recent list discussion.

Stephen.