Hi Jim,
Jim Schaad wrote:
I have the following comments on the draft charter:
1. The second paragraph has the sentence:
The DKIM working group will also produce security requirements to guide
their efforts, and will analyze the impact on senders and receivers who are
not using DKIM, particularly any cases in which mail may be inappropriately
labeled as suspicious or spoofed.
I don't understand what the last clause has to do with people who are not
using DKIM. If they are not using DKIM then mail could not be labeled as
suspicious or spoofed. I assume that this should read:
The DKIM working group will also produce security requirements to guide
their efforts. This will include the impact of sending domains that are not
using DKIM (mail may be inappropriately labeled as suspicious or spoofed by
receiving domains that use DKIM). Additionally it will include the impact
of receiving domains that are not using DKIM (**** what is an example attack
or problem????****).
Hmm. Not sure that I prefer that. I think the current text means
that we have to care if dkim (+/- ssp) causes some reciever to
say "this is spoofed" far too easily, just because of how we've
structured dkim (and ssp in particular). You may be right that
there's no example for receiveing domains not using DKIM, but I
don't think the charter has to say that.
2. Formatting issue -- is paragraph 3 really three paragraphs or just three
sentences within a single paragraph
3. On the deliverables I would like to see the first delivable moved to the
end of the list (to match the order of milestones). It makes the tracking
between the two lists simpler.
I'm happy to let Barry take those editorials.
4. It is not clear to me that you can separate the development of the DNS
RR from the base specification. My assumption is that the base
specification is stating how the addressing of the DNS RR is to be done and
to effectively specfiy the content. It makes more sense to me to pull each
of the different DNS RR's into the respective documents.
That's a fair enough point and one that Dave Crocker's mail from
today also tackles. I personally don't know if changing this would
be better or would just add delay with no real benefit, but I'm
interested in hearing opinions.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org