Hi All,
Barry and I went over the current issues list [1] (rt.psg.com version)
and went back over the list archive (where we found a couple of missed
ones). The attached represents our classification of all those.
Regards,
Stephen.
[1]
https://rt.psg.com/Search/Results.html?Query=Queue%20%3D%20'dkim'%20AND%20(Status%20%3D%20'open'%20OR%20Status%20%3D%20'new')&Rows=50
--- Notes
Note that these states were allocated wearing our WG chair hats. If someone
wants to re-open an issue then they need to get two other list participants to
also argue their case.
All OPEN issues for threats-01 and base-00 will be on the agenda in Dallas.
Eliot will create new entires in the tracker for NNNN issues.
Explanation of states used:
PROPOSE REJECT - if no-one objects within a week then this changes to
REJECT, if someone objects it changes to OPEN
REJECT - resolved issue with no changes to be made
OPEN - still up for discussion
ACCEPT - resolved issue with a consensus change yet to be made
DONE - resolved issue with consensus change applied
-- threats issues
1170 Introduction lacks the introduction of SSP new dkim Nobody 0
hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com 6 weeks ago 6 weeks
ago 0
PROPOSE REJECT no support for change, but no discussion
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001883.html
1171 draft-ietf-dkim-threats-00 Clarification of the DKIM mechanism new
dkim Nobody 0
dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org 6 weeks ago 6 weeks ago 0
I think the title above doesn't match the thread which was
"Misstatement of the..." ?
OPEN got some support, no list opposition, but not included in
threats-01
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001907.html
1172 disagreement on impact and probability of Attacks Against Message
Signatures new dkim Nobody 0
dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org 6 weeks ago 6 weeks ago 0
OPEN some discussion, no clear consensus to change or not
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001910.html
1173 Does Section 4.1.4 properly address traceability and accountability?
new dkim Nobody 0
dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org 6 weeks ago 6 weeks ago 0
REJECT no support for change
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001909.html
1174 raft-ietf-dkim-threats-00 Limited information in a critical section
new dkim Nobody 0
dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org 6 weeks ago 2 days ago 0
REJECT no support for change
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001908.html
1180 draft-ietf-dkim-threats-00 DKIM can be effective within the
Originator's AdmD open dkim Nobody 0
dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org 5 weeks ago 5 weeks ago 0
REJECT no support for change
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001941.html
1181 Misleading figure in 1.1 new dkim Nobody 0
nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de 5 weeks ago
5 weeks ago 0
PROPOSE REJECT no support for change, editor opposed but no other
discussion
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002471.html
1182 Eavesdropping may permit man-in-the-middle as well new dkim
Nobody 0
dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org 5 weeks ago 5 weeks ago 0
PROPOSE REJECT no support for change, no discussion
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002008.html
1186 4.2 needs new Attack Item: Inconsistent Signature vs Policy Attacks
new dkim Nobody 0
hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com 5 weeks ago 5 weeks
ago 0
DONE - new SSP attack added to threats-1 (section 4.2.6)
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002015.html
1192 TLD key publication and signing new dkim Nobody 0
Mike(_dot_)Markley(_at_)bankofamerica(_dot_)com 3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago 0
DONE - new threat added to threats-01 in section 4.1.18
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002152.html
1206 Threats Issue - Large DNS records make servers targets for spoofed
source amplification attacks abuse new dkim Nobody 0
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net
DONE - threats-01 has a new section 4.3.1 just for this.
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002435.html
NNNN Threat-00 Limiting the scope of trust
dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org
REJECT - no consenus on this change
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002073.html
-- base issues
1183 carryover: draft-allman-dkim-base-01.txt - Should we have an r= tag in
either the signature or key record new dkim Nobody 0
lear(_at_)ofcourseimright(_dot_)com 5 weeks ago 5 weeks
ago 0
OPEN
no thread?
1184 carryover: Develop plan for transition of multiple crypto algs (a=)
new dkim Nobody 0
lear(_at_)ofcourseimright(_dot_)com 5 weeks ago 5 weeks
ago 0
OPEN - not much discussion of how to transition, though not much
disagreement either
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002414.html
1185 carryover: draft-allman-dkim-base-01.txt Transition sha-1 to sha-256
new dkim Nobody 0
lear(_at_)ofcourseimright(_dot_)com 5 weeks ago 5 weeks
ago 0
OPEN - not quite closed on the actual exact wording
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002414.html
1190 base-00 3.5 x= new dkim Nobody 0
nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de 3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago 0
REJECT - change opposed, proposer accepted leaving MUST
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002131.html
1193 base spec: instead of signing the message, sign the hash new
dkim Nobody 0
lear(_at_)ofcourseimright(_dot_)com 3 weeks ago 3 weeks
ago 0
OPEN
no (recent) thread
1194 base spec: whitespace in signature? new dkim Nobody 0
eric(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)com 3 weeks ago 3 weeks ago 0
OPEN - not sure if this is the right thread
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002464.html
1195 draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 - 3.4.6 Example (Canonicalization) new
dkim Nobody 0
hsantos(_at_)santronics(_dot_)com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks
ago 0
OPEN - no discussion
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002148.html
1196 Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks
new dkim Nobody 0
MarkD+dkim(_at_)yahoo-inc(_dot_)com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks
ago 0
OPEN - lots of discussion, no clear closure
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002163.html
1200 MUST vs SHOULD in Verifier Actions section (-base) new dkim
Nobody 0
eric(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks ago 0
OPEN
not sure which thread
1201 change the syntax from SPF compat to human compat new dkim
Nobody 0
MarkD+dkim(_at_)yahoo-inc(_dot_)com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks
ago 0
OPEN
not sure which thread
1203 extendable RR records? new dkim Nobody 0
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks ago 0
ACCEPT - the title of this issue is misleading, its really about extra
options to be specified in a DKIM TXT record
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002260.html
1204 issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based
implementations new dkim Nobody 0
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks ago 0
OPEN - seemed like consensus but no clear change
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002273.html
NNNN clarifications on use of l= tag
Eric Allman
OPEN - no discussion
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002185.html
NNNN signature h= and z= tags
Hector Santos
OPEN - little discussion
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002375.html
-- SSP issues
NNNN should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more
readable?
Mark Delaney
OPEN
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002219.html
NNNN should r= be localpart only?
Mark Delaney
OPEN
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002220.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html