Subject: [ietf-dkim] Agenda for IETF 75

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:01:47 -0400

I have uploaded the following agenda to the IETF meeting materials manager:
  https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/75/materials.html

------------------------------------------
Agenda for DKIM meeting at IETF 75, Stockholm

We're currently scheduled for Tuesday, 28 July, 13:00-15:00 local time.

The primary purpose of the meeting is to talk about next steps, which
may include 4871bis work.

Agenda:
1. Administrative: agenda review, WG status review, etc.  (5 mins)
2. Discussion of next steps.  (the rest of the time)

Specific topics for discussion:
- Is there enough energy to update DKIM base (RFC 4871) & go to draft standard?
- Is DKIM base ready for that?  Do we have enough experience to know
it's stable?
- Should we eliminate features in the process, to steamline?
- If so, what features?
- Do we have good statistics on what features are used on each side?
------------------------------------------

If anyone wants to make a specific presentation, please post here, or
let us know at <[email-masked]>.

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

---

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:02:00 -0700

Barry,

I think it is unlikely that there will be much response data, by the time of the 
meeting, to the deployment survey I've sent.  Still, it might be worth some 
discussion, including where else to circulate it to and what we think we'll know 
after we get a sufficient number of responses.

d/

-- 

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

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:15:47 -0400

> In order to level-set the group on the draft standard process, can
> someone please send a pointer to the process for moving from PS to DS
> (what the requirements are, and what is and isn't allowed to change)?
> If more of us are on the same page with understanding that process, the
> discussion is likely to be more productive.

Dave's note that has his surveys also has a couple of pointers, though
the first one is wrong now, after the IETF web site change.  So, to be
complete:

The IETF standards process (BCP 9, RFC 2026):
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2026

Update to RFC 2026 on implementation reports (in last call since 7 July):
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dusseault-impl-reports

IESG page of implementation reports:
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/implementation-report.html

Barry

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:54:29 -0700

-Jim

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:22:46 -0400

The key document is RFC 2026. It's been updated by several other RFCs,
but none of them affect the status transitions.

The key section is "4.1.2 Draft Standard". It's five paragraphs can be
summarized as follows:

   1) interoperable
	a) 2 independent & interoperable implementations
	b) "sufficient operational experience"
	c) "a strong belief that spec is mature and will be useful"

   2) interoperability is applied on a option & feature basis
	a) any options or features not demonstrated to be interoperable
	   by independent implementations must be removed

   3) WG chair responsible for documenting implementations
	a) used for the qualification, and
	b) documentation about the testing of the interopability.
	c) Includes information on individual options/features.
	d) Submits to AD.

   4) DS must be
	a) well understood and
	b) quite stable.
	c) Wide spread field experience is NOT required. ("it is
	possible ... [for DS specs] to demonstrate unforeseen behavior
	when subjected to large-scale use in production environments.")

   5) Changes hereafter are only to fix specific problems encountered
      while deploying widely.

Section 6.2 further adds
   6) Must be at PS at least six months.

That pretty much covers it.

	Tony Hansen
	[email-masked]

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:13:22 -0700

Tony,

Do you have any information on what options and features were tested in
the DKIM interoperability event in Fall 2007?  That should establish the
independent and interoperable implementations for a number of things?  I
found notes describing what had been found to need clarification, but
not on what had been tested.

-Jim

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 06:17:23 -0700

IIRC, we showed interoperability with all aspects of the spec. In 
particular, both Murray's and
mine have had the ability to do everything, but Tony's, Arvil's, the 
folks at Port 25 and most
of the other "mature" implementations all interoperated, where "mature" 
was two years ago.
I imagine that the less mature ones at the time have come up to speed in 
the mean time. So
for the sake of DS, we've had abundant evidence of "interoperable" for 
almost 2 years at
least.

Mike