Thanks Eric,
For the purposes of jabbering (assuming we get going with no
glitches) I suggest we only cover issues still open according
to this list. (BTW: I've asked Eliot to merge this list and
his and formally close whatever's closed on both, yell if that's
a problem.)
S.
Eric Allman wrote:
According to my notes, following is the issues status from Dallas:
1183 (r= tag in signature or key record): Remains open. My notes say
"ACTION: Doug Otis will argue for r= in the mail address, Phil [Paul?]
Hoffman will argue against"
1184 (multiple crypto transition): Mark D was going to provide text for
a discussion of how to choose a signature.
1185 (sha1 vs sha256): I was going to provide wording. That's in my
-02b draft (i.e., it hasn't been published yet).
1193 (separate body and header hashes): Done in -02b.
1194 (whitespace in signature): was done before Dallas.
1195 (typos and examples): done in -02b.
1196 (upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks):
remains open. Full text of my notes reads: "EKR: verifier choice what
algճ to accept, regardless of signer preference. Russ: signer should
state what gets used, verifier should choose. Status: remains open (are
they going to write up their positions?)."
1200 (MUST vs SHOULD in verifier actions): Done in -02b.
1201 (change syntax from SPF notation to human): Redirected to SSP
discussion.
1204 (DKIM "simple" header canon vs milter): Closed --- MTA
implementation issue, not a protocol issue.
1216 (decouple signature h= and z=): Done (I hope) in -02b.
1217 (SSP syntax): not part of -base (looks similar to 1201).
1221/1222 (ABNF: Sender = Originator/Operator): moved to -threats; Dave
C has some action on this, probably to provide wording.
1224 (DKIM and Mailing Lists): Open --- we ran out of time.
1226 (512 bit keys too short): Done in -02b.
1227 (nits for base): Done in -02b.
1229 (z= and EAI WG): Closed/Pending. Paul H to act as liaison.
1230 (selectors and key rollover): Closed; it's a BCP issue not a spec
issue.
1231 (process-problematic references in base): discussed, but it remains
open.
1236 (Analyzing failures: list of possible reasons): -02b addresses some
of this, but perhaps does not go far enough, so it remains open.
--- The following were not on the list in Dallas and hence remain open:
1235 (threats-01 over prescriptive about key delegation).
1255 (optional exponent needed?).
1258 (using v= in -base-01 and forwards).
1263 (get rid of x=): I /think/ this has been resolved.
1264 (proposed fingerprint tag description).
1265 (signing by parent domains).
1266 (sec 5.2 move recommendations for key retention to a BCP).
1267 (expiry based on received time rather than current time).
1268 (format of t=).
1269/1270 (body length mechanism rejections).
1271 (binary algorithms and algorithm spoofing during a transition).
1272 (when i= domain != d= domain).
1274 (r= for instilling good domain-name practices).
--- Following in my notes from Dallas, but not in the issues list:
N001 (clarify delegation to 3rd parties). Stephen Farrell. See
<http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002618.html>.
N002 (base editorial). Stephen Farrell.
<http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002617.html>.
N004 (x= and clock skew). EKR. No reference. "Guidance about what
happens in the case of clock skew."
N005 (editorial comments). EKR. No reference. I think he was going to
send me something, but I either didn't get it or have misplaced it.
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html