ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

[ietf-dkim] Re: /DKIM-charter-06bl.txt Comments

2005-11-06 08:07:17

Hector,

1) The stated goals and milestones in the current draft charter are:

GOALS AND MILESTONES:

02/06     WG last call on DKIM threats and security requirements
05/06     WG last call on DKIM signature specification
09/06     WG last call on DKIM policy specification
12/06     WG last call on DKIM DNS Resource Record
12/06     WG last call on overview document

Is there suppose to be a milestone date for the first deliverable
described
in the draft charter?

That's the "overview document", and is the last out of the door
according to the current charter, and so 12/06 is the date.

We could clarify that by moving the text about I guess. Probably
worth doing if it wasn't clear to someone following the list.

* an informational RFC providing an overview of DKIM, how it can fit
  into overall messaging systems and outlining potential DKIM applictions
  and future extensions

2) Minor: typos

Note typo "applications" in first deliverable statement.

Note type "incuding" in the out of scope itemized line:

Thanks.


* Duplication of prior work in signed email, incuding S/MIME and OpenPGP.

3) Mixed Technology Integrated Issues.

As an implementator, we will be faced with integrated design issues such
as
current 2821 email security RFC track technology, including 2821 RFC
standard methods (SIEVE) and non-RFC but very popular concepts such as
SPAM-ASSASSIN.

I am not sure if this is implied in the charter, should be highlighted as
out of scope, or part of the first deliverable: Overview of DKIM.

I have never been to an IETF function such as a BOF, but if I were to
attend
and in the audience, there is no doubt in my mind I would raise the
questions with the panel:

    "Can DKIM can be used as standalone?"
    "Is DKIM designed to replaced current technology XYZ?"
    "Can DKIM coexist with XYZ and how?"

I imagine these could be considered out of scope for the charter, but at
the
same time, as part of the stated first deliverable, "how it can fit into
overall messaging systems,"  it might be difficult to avoid discussion of
integrated and mixed technology policy result issues.

While I do understand much of this will depend on the point of view
perspective of authors, network and system administrators, providers and
developers, I believe this is important because ultimately, we will be
faced
with this issue and customers will ask the same sort of question.  I think
the WG should help with the guideline and insights.

I think those are excellent things to include a paragraph or two
(or whatever's warranted) in the overview document. (And making
sure that disagreement over that kind of text doesn't become a
barrier to progress is one reason why the overview should be the
last out.)

4) Migration planning and accelerating Adoption.

I think this would be part of the overview.  Possibly a small change to
the
first deliverable statement:

* an informational RFC providing an overview of DKIM, how it can fit
  into overall messaging systems, migration considerations, and outlining
  potential DKIM applications and future extensions

I wouldn't object, though I'd have thought it was implicit.

Cheers,
Stephen.



_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>