Subject: [ietf-dkim] Urgent: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-10 and RFC 5451

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 09:47:50 -0400

Pasi is putting draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-10 on the 4 June telechat.  But...

This version has added registry entries for RFC 5451
(Authentication-Results), which had been removed from that document to
avoid having its publication block on a reference-wait from ADSP.
Only, I can't find any discussion that the WG had about making that
change.

While I think this change will not likely fuel any controversy, we
can't publish this without having it approved by the working group.
So, ASAP, please:

1. If someone can find documentation of WG discussion about this, reply here.

2. If anyone objects to its inclusion (see sections 5.3 and 5.4 of
draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-10), reply here.

3. A few "Yes, adding this is groovy," messages would be good and all.

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

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 11:30:48 -0700 (PDT)

> 3. A few "Yes, adding this is groovy," messages would be good and all.

Yes, adding this is way groovy.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: "J.D. Falk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 13:50:03 -0600

> Yes, adding this is way groovy.

+1

-- 
J.D. Falk
Return Path Inc
http://www.returnpath.net/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 14:22:05 -0700

> 1. If someone can find documentation of WG discussion about this, reply here.

To my knowledge, there was no WG discussion about this.  John Levine
pointed out the change to the co-editors of the draft on March 31,
noting that this makes the dependencies between RFC 5451 and ADSP match
the timing of their publication, and that this shouldn't be
controversial.  I agree.

> draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-10), reply here.

Just to be thorough, I'll point out that the new section 6.4 describes a
consideration that largely stems from RFC 5451 as well.

No objection.
> 3. A few "Yes, adding this is groovy," messages would be good and all.

Yes, adding this is groovy indeed.

-Jim

---

From: "Siegel, Ellen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 10:55:07 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
> On Behalf Of J.D. Falk
> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 3:50 PM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Urgent: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-10 and RFC 5451
> 

+1

Ellen

----------
Ellen Siegel
[email-masked]

---

From: "MH Michael Hammer \(5304\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 11:29:33 -0400

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> [email-masked]] On Behalf Of Siegel, Ellen
> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 10:55 AM
> To: J.D. Falk; IETF DKIM WG

+1

---

From: Jeff Macdonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:49:42 -0400

On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 11:29:33AM -0400, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>> [email-masked]]

+1

-- 
Jeff Macdonald
[email-masked]