Subject: [ietf-dkim] ADSP publication requested

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:11:51 +0100

Hi Pasi,

The DKIM WG has finished WGLC on the ADSP draft [1] so this is
a formal note requesting publication. The proto write up details
are attached,

Thanks,
Stephen.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-06

Technical Summary

   DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) defines a domain-level authentication
   framework for email to permit verification of the source and contents of
   messages.  This document specifies an adjunct mechanism to aid in assessing
   messages that do not contain a DKIM signature for the domain used in the
   author's address.  It defines a record that can advertise whether a domain
   signs its outgoing mail, and how other hosts can access that record.

Working Group Summary

   draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-06 is the 7th official WG draft, following on from
   3 iterations of an individual submission (draft-allman-dkim-ssp)
   with the -00 version dating back to January 2006. The current draft
   has passed WGLC with solid support in the DKIM WG. Some minor editorial
   changes were make post-WGLC based on (a few) comments received on
   the -05 draft.

   The DKIM WG used the rt.psg.com tracker for its work (queue=dkim)
   and processed O(50) issues for this document over the period.

Document Quality

   The document has undergone thorough review in the WG resulting in
   various revisions, typically removing features or renaming elements
   of the protocol, however, the basic core feature of ADSP has remained
   stable all through the process.

Personnel

   Stephen Farrell ([email-masked]) is the shepherd for this
   document.

PROTO write-up:

(1.a)  Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Has the Document
Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular,
does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for
publication?

   I have reviewed this vesion and believe it is ready for publication.

(1.b)  Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from
key non-WG members?  Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the
depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

   The document has undergone very thorough review in the WG. Some
   members of the DNS directorate have also been involved in 
   discussions at various stages of its development.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more
review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational
complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML?

   No concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this
document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of?
For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the
document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it.  In any event,
if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to
advance the document, detail those concerns here.  Has an IPR disclosure
related to this document been filed?  If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue.

   No concerns.

   I know of no IPR issues with this document. 

(1.e)  How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?  Does it represent
the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does
the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

   The WG has a strong concensus that this document should proceed. 

(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document
satisfies all ID nits?  (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.)  Boilerplate checks are not enough; this
check needs to be thorough.  Has the document met all formal review criteria it
needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews?  If the
document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first
page, please indicate the intended status here.

   The nits tool generates one warning only ("Authors' Adresses" section
   title).

(1.h)  Has the document split its references into normative and informative?
Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement
or are otherwise in an unclear state?  If such normative references exist, what
is the strategy for their completion?  Are there normative references that are
downward references, as described in [RFC3967]?  If so, list these downward
references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them
[RFC3967].

    References are split, there are no downrefs.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document?
If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in
appropriate IANA registries?  Are the IANA registries clearly identified?  If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial
contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations?
Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry?  See [RFC2434].  If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the
needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

   Looks fine to me.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are
written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions,
etc., validate correctly in an automated checker?

   Yes. There's one small bit of ABNF which is correct.

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