Thanks Bill.
A sequence of +/-1 messages like that might be useful to help Barry
and I assess rough consensus at the roughest level.
(Given that other threads are mostly likely to embody disagreement
with some aspect of the -08 changes.)
S.
Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
I can live with the proposed changes in this draft as written.
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
404-847-6397
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 9:37 AM
To: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted
Most of the changes that Eric made should be non-controversial,
involving clarifications and tweaking that have helped us (the draft
authors and the working group chairs) explain things to the IESG.
Regardless, though, of the non-controversial nature of those changes,
the chairs would like the working group to review the document fully.
The most changes are in two areas:
The security considerations, where some significant changes went in
after discussion with the Security Directorate. We hope these fall into
the "non-controversial" category, and we urge the working group to
object only with strong reason.
Section 5.4.1, "Recommended Signature Content". Stephen has posted a
pointer to the extensive IESG comments, but to summarize: there is
concern in the IESG that, given no guidance at all, some signers will
create perfectly compliant signatures that no verifier will accept even
after verification succeeds, resulting in an interoperability problem.
The new version of section 5.4.1 is thus attempting to give minimal
advice, which might be modified by more specific signing policies
defined later, to alleviate this concern.
Please review and discuss. The chairs would like the group to complete
this discussion quickly and efficiently, so that the IESG can send a
final draft to the RFC editor very soon. To that end, we're setting the
discussion period to a week, and we're asking that we keep any
discussion of the -08 draft tightly on track. The point here is not to
rehash anything that's already been discussed, to pick again at anyone's
pet points, nor to go on about unimportant details. The point is to
decide whether with these changes, the document remains a solid protocol
that has the rough consensus of this community.
As usual, when you start a discussion thread, don't use this subject
line. Use something specific to the topic you're discussing.
A week of discussion -- which ends on 26 January... and starts now.
--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair (leiba(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com)
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html