Subject: [ietf-dkim] Potential DKIM re-chartering...

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:11:03 +0100

Hi All,

In Dublin [1] we had a few proposals for new work items and presentation
of some related work (Murray's stuff). We agreed with the AD that we
would not start a discussion about potentially re-chartering until after
ADSP and the overview were out of the WG. Well, we're there now, ADSP is
with the AD, the overview write-up is in Barry's queue, and Pasi is ok
with us starting this discussion now.

So, can folks who'd like to propose that we recharter to take on new
work post an I-D describing what they'd like and then start a thread
here so we can discuss the various ideas. Note that the I-D cutoff for
-00's is October 27th. Of course, if you already have an I-D then just
start a thread. Please don't make a proposal without an I-D (the new
tools make posting a draft so easy, I think this is fair).

Barry and I would like us to be able to discuss the various proposals
in Minneapolis with a view to crafting new charter text to send to Pasi
shortly thereafter if we see rough consensus for taking on some new
work items. (BTW - I suspect that if we have no new work items, we
won't need a DKIM slot at every IETF in future and so we'll be very
close to declaring victory, which is always nice:-)

And just in case some folks aren't clear - any new charter text
would just be a proposal for a new charter, the IESG make the decision
as to whether or not to ok that after requesting feedback from the
broader IETF community.

Regards,
Stephen.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/minutes?item=minutes72.html

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

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:43:23 +0000

Folks, we've had no response so far to this request for new
work items. If that remains the case, Barry and I plan to
let our AD know that its time to declare victory for DKIM and
that we'll be heading into dormant mode after the next
meeting (which should be very short).

Stephen.

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:03:27 -0700

It does seem like things are winding down.  A couple of things:

1. I'm not sure where we are on the overview draft.  Have we completed
WGLC on it?  The I-D tracker doesn't indicate anything happening.

2. The deployment draft has expired.  Is that still going to happen?

For new business, I understand that the domains that are "actively"
using signatures for non-delivery decisions from specific domains
(e.g., PayPal -> GMail) are doing so with a feedback path in place
-- they know when mail is being dropped on their behalf.  I think we
should consider taking on draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting as a WG work
item, as it provides approximately that capability in what would be a
standardized way.  I realize there will be some disagreement whether
this is a good idea, but that's what a chartering discussion is all
about.

-Jim

Stephen Farrell wrote:

Stephen.

Stephen Farrell wrote:

Hi All,

Regards,
Stephen.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 10:47:36 +0000

> WGLC on it?  The I-D tracker doesn't indicate anything happening.

Its done with WGLC (I sent out a note a while back.) Barry's just done
the PROTO write-up, so it's essentially with the AD. Datatracker should
catch up soon.

> 2. The deployment draft has expired.  Is that still going to happen?

Yes.

> using signatures for non-delivery decisions from specific domains (e.g.,
> PayPal -> GMail) are doing so with a feedback path in place -- they know
> when mail is being dropped on their behalf.  I think we should consider
> taking on draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting as a WG work item, as it
> provides approximately that capability in what would be a standardized
> way.  I realize there will be some disagreement whether this is a good
> idea, but that's what a chartering discussion is all about.

Ok. Looks like a good agenda item for MSP. But of course, folks should
discuss on-list if they have opinions/ideas.

S.

---

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:42:49 -0700

Well my principal proposal would be to add elements into the key record to allow a key to be associated with a URI from which a cert chain vouching said key may be obtained. 
 
I already have an ID submitted!

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Mon 10/13/2008 8:11 AM
To: ietf-dkim
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Potential DKIM re-chartering...

Hi All,

Regards,
Stephen.

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:28:48 -0700

On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> Well my principal proposal would be to add elements into the key  
> record to allow a key to be associated with a URI from which a cert  
> chain vouching said key may be obtained.
>

I could add to this list, but perhaps it remains too soon.

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-otis-dkim-tpa-adsp-00.txt

It would seem the changes being made to DKIM by ADSP prevent adoption  
of a compatible method to authorize a third-party domains.  Strangely,  
the ADSP effort appears aimed at satisfying a results header that  
normally includes authorized SMTP clients.

-Doug