I keep getting left off the acknowledgements section :-P. Guess I have
to try harder not to cause the authors to get too upset at me ;-)
OK, I will jump in with both feet--
In as far as signing, I think we had discussed before that an
intermediary (I sign SOME mail) would be worthless without being able
to communicate the cases in which the email MUST be signed.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
On 2/21/07, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> wrote:
I think that there is plenty on policy to keep us busy.
I see three (related) questions:
1) What is the range of policy statements that should be supported?
PHB: [DKIM[=keyselector]? ] *
(signing is all or nothing, multiple signatures may be
specified).
Others: ?
(does anyone argue for DKIM-Somethines as an actionable policy)
2) What syntax should be supported?
PHB: Tag-value pairs, DKIM is a tag
Other possible extension tags are for other protocols: SPF,
PHISHED, DKIM-TEST, SMIME, PGP, etc.
Others: ?
(This answer depends on the andswer to 1, if you have a great
deal
of expression in your policy language then a DKIM language might
be appropriate).
3) What should the discovery mechanism be?
PHB: Finese the wildcard issue with a pointer record
Reuse of PTR prefered but a new RR is acceptable
Others: ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
> [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Stephen
Farrell
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:01 AM
> To: Barry Leiba
> Cc: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-10 submitted
>
>
>
> Barry Leiba wrote:
> >> The DKIM base draft has been updated and submitted. The
> changes are
> >> minimal, comprising response to IESG review and some XML updates
> >> intended to smooth the rfc-editor review.
> >
> > And the -base-10 draft is now on its way to the RFC editor
> queue,[1]
> > having passed IESG review. Many thanks to everyone who
> worked to get
> > this done. And now we just wait for the RFC editor
> process, and the
> > RFC number for the Proposed Standard.
>
> And get active on SSP again. (Or should I cancel the Prague
> meeting slot? So far we've little to discuss it seems.)
>
> S.
> _______________________________________________
> 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