Subject: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 09:50:24 -0800

Folks,

G'day.

The latest version of:

      RFC 4871 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures -- Errata

      draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02
      <http://dkim.org/ietf-dkim.htm#errata>

was posted 8 days ago.  A competing proposal was posted 2 days ago.

On reviewing the list activity, concerning the the contents of 
rfc4871-errata-02, I've seen:

      *  Some debate about a vocabulary choice that appears to be have converged 
on retaining the current usage and definition

      *  One posting noting some minor typos that can be fixed for the released 
version

      *  Some requests for progressing the current draft.

Concerning the alternative proposal, I've seen only one posting in its favor.

Consequently, I'd like to ask that we go through a working group Last Call for 
rfc4871-errata-02.

d/

-- 

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

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:26:00 +0100

Dave,

You've seen several votes for the alternate, but in any case Jim has 
offered alternate language, which i am inclined to accept.  I would be 
happy to proceed, however, with a poll on the process, if you would like.

Eliot

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:31:37 -0800

> happy to proceed, however, with a poll on the process, if you would like.

1. Jim sent the only posting that I read as simple,  direct support.

2. My request was for +1/-1 postings on draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02, not a 
request for a multi-stage sequence starting with meta-questions about process.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:39:45 +0100

On 2/12/09 7:31 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> offered alternate language, which i am inclined to accept.  I would 
>> be happy to proceed, however, with a poll on the process, if you 
>> would like.
>
>

And Murray also indicated support, at least in part, but had questions 
about whether I felt it was appropriate to address your core concern 
about having a single gazzouta, and wanted an answer, which I gave.

>
> 2. My request was for +1/-1 postings on 
> draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02, not a request for a multi-stage 
> sequence starting with meta-questions about process.

Yes, and I would prefer the multi-stage approach, because I consider 
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 to be excessive to the problem at 
hand, lacking consideration for the appropriate tradeoffs on readability.

Eliot

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:45:58 -0800

Eliot Lear wrote:
> And Murray also indicated support, at least in part, 

In part is different from complete.

I happen to support your proposal... in part.  Unfortunately, the remainder of 
my assessment results in non-support.

In any event, it's ok if my assessment isn't fully accurate:  postings about the 
draft will determine whether in fact there is rough consensus support for it.

> hand, lacking consideration for the appropriate tradeoffs on readability.

And if the rest of the working group agrees with you, then the draft won't 
attain rough consensus.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:49:54 +0100

Just to be clear, what will happen next if there is a WGLC is that I 
will post isssues.  There may be quite a number of them.  If on the 
other hand, we can poll on process, I will refrain from posting issues 
later.

Eliot

On 2/12/09 7:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> I happen to support your proposal... in part.  Unfortunately, the 
> remainder of my assessment results in non-support.
>
> In any event, it's ok if my assessment isn't fully accurate:  postings 
> about the draft will determine whether in fact there is rough 
> consensus support for it.
>
>
> And if the rest of the working group agrees with you, then the draft 
> won't attain rough consensus.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:02:27 +0000

> Consequently, I'd like to ask that we go through a working group Last Call for 

Barry and I are just pinging about with Pasi on some process stuff but
will be back to get this started/sorted in a day or two.

S.

---

From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:54:34 -0500

Eliot,

I for one would prefer a straight up +1/-1 vote on the errata draft as
it stands. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:50 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: DKIM IETF WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group LastCall on:
draft-ietf-
> dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:32:20 -0500

>hand, lacking consideration for the appropriate tradeoffs on readability.

+1 (since we're counting).

Scott K

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:30:06 -0500

>request for a multi-stage sequence starting with meta-questions about 
process.

Don't wg chairs start LC?

Also I sent a +1 to this list for Elliot's proposal, so your accounting is 
incomplete.

Scott K

---

From: Al Iverson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:08:49 -0500

> I for one would prefer a straight up +1/-1 vote on the errata draft as

As would I.

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

---

From: Douglas Otis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:17:18 -0800

On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Yes, and I would prefer the multi-stage approach, because I  
>> consider draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 to be excessive to the  
>> problem at hand, lacking consideration for the appropriate  
>> tradeoffs on readability.
>

+1 agreed.

The WG should also discuss the merits of making a statement warning  
against a domain overlapping their valid namespace with fictitious or  
token i= values.  While such overlap should be discouraged to avoid  
confusing recipients as to what the i= values means, this has received  
little discussion other than to say the i= value represents a totally  
separate namespace.  Since this statement is _not_ always true, some  
effort should be made by the domain to ensure that there is no  
apparent overlap within the same message.  Several techniques can  
ensure the isolation of different i= value uses.

-Doug

---

From: "Siegel, Ellen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:22:34 -0500

> I for one would prefer a straight up +1/-1 vote on the errata draft as

+1

I do agree that it would be a Good Thing to roll this and all the other errata into a -bis spec draft, but think that it would be better to nail down what we have as errata first given the time required to revise the entire draft.

Ellen

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:01:39 -0800 (PST)

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Douglas Otis wrote:
> effort should be made by the domain to ensure that there is no apparent 
> overlap within the same message.  Several techniques can ensure the 
> isolation of different i= value uses.

I think that's flipped logic from what the working group should say (and 
is saying via both of the proposed errata on this topic).

IMHO, it is sufficient to indicate that the local-part of "i=" is opaque. 
Absent any secure indication from the signer that such a value is stable 
and/or maps to an address, the verifier is thus admonished against jumping 
to that conclusion, even if they do appear to be the same.

It's becoming clear, though, that such an indication mechanism would 
probably be beneficial.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:21:10 -0800

> It's becoming clear, though, that such an indication mechanism would 

As far as I can tell, the use case for an identifier that is stable is
to provide additional information to reputation systems.  An alternative
to an indication that i= is stable is to put that in a separate
tag/value, as suggested in draft-fenton-dkim-reputation-hint-00.

-Jim

---

From: [email-masked] (Wietse Venema)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:02:31 -0500 (EST)

Siegel, Ellen:
> I do agree that it would be a Good Thing to roll this and all the
> other errata into a -bis spec draft, but think that it would be
> better to nail down what we have as errata first given the time
> required to revise the entire draft.

+1.

	Wietse

---

From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:37:54 +0530

+1

--srs

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:19:49 +0100

would any of the people who are saying +1 please answer the following 
two questions:

1.  Beyond confusion surround i=, what is the interoperability problem?
2.  Is it possible to correct the problem without additional text?

A reference to a previous message that answers these questions would be 
sufficient.

Eliot

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:59:40 +0000

Folks,

Please hold off on +1's etc until Barry & I respond to Dave's
request for a WGLC. If and when we do WGLC then you'll need
to resend anyway, so there's no need now.

S.