We have Internet-Drafts from Phill and Doug, as well as the now-expired
-allman-ssp draft, which Jim is working on an edit to resubmit, so it
soon will no longer be expired. Note that the new draft will still be
-allman-ssp for now, not -dkim-ssp. So how will we proceed?
Dave suggested in Montréal, to the agreement of at least some
(including the chairs), that we have to step back and sort out SSP
*requirements* before we can do an SSP specification. Mike has
volunteered to put together a first pass at that, which he is working
on feverishly as I type this (OK, I'm typing this at 5:40 in the
morning his time, so that's probably an exaggeration, but you get the
point).
Therefore, here's the plan:
* Mike will put out a requirements draft, which we will approve as
"draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00" (Mike, take note of the name, and
be sure to copy "dkim-chairs(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org" when you submit
the I-D).
This document will go through whatever iterations are needed to get
rough consensus, but will most likely remain a draft, and eventually
expire (no RFC). Its purpose will be to lay the foundation for a
"draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-00" document, which will be the standards-track
spec.
* The proposals that are out there now (the three drafts I mentioned
about), along with any others that people want to float, will be input
to the requirements discussion. What the ultimate -dkim-ssp-00 doc
will look like after that is anyone's guess right now. That's why we
need to hash out the requirements.
* We aim to have consensus on the requirements some time in September
(we'd like to be optimistic, and say "mid-Sept" rather than "end of
Sept"). At that point, we'll see where we are, and either use one of
the "individual" drafts as a basis or appoint a design team to write a
new draft.
* That gives us a draft spec by the end of September or so, which has
at least rough consensus that it fits the working-group's requirements.
We'll have time before and during the San Diego IETF meeting to work on
it, and then we can wrap it up after. The goal will be to send it to
the IESG as a Christmas present.
Plan-bashing is welcome, but any suggestion that we don't need to do
the "requirements" step will have to put forth a Very Strong
explanation as to why not. Meanwhile, we await Mike's first
requirements draft with bated breath.
I'll note that we'll work on the overview document in parallel with
SSP, but that SSP takes priority.
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair (leiba(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com)
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html