ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-01 12:08:47
Works for me.  Actually, due to vacation schedules, I need to accelerate
that a bit and get the draft submitted by June 15.

So, WG participants (especially the 'usual suspects'), let's hear from you.

-Jim

Stephen Farrell wrote:

Hi Jim,

Barry and I would like us to do the following:

Continue the discussion on the list for a few more days since
not all the usual suspects have reacted yet (please do!) and
the context is slightly different (with XPTR anyway) from the
(many;-) other times we've discussed these topics in the past.

Then, (say the week after next?) you get the co-authors of
draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-00 together and just pick your current
best answer for each relevant issue and submit the -00
around June 24. If you think some concalls/jabbering or
whatever will help there, just let Barry & I know.

Then, we'll look for offers of concrete alternative text
to be sent to the list before Chicago.

In Chicago we discuss. With one another and with the
DNS folks.

And then (back on the list) we resolve each of these well-worn
issues once and for all (using strawpolls or whatever's
necessary) over the following weeks and aim for a draft on
which we can have WGLC in September. (With the reality being
that it'll be October before we're ready.)

Regards
Stephen & Barry.


Jim Fenton wrote:
What we had hoped to do in the next revision of the allman-ssp draft
was to unify it as much as possible with Phill Hallam-Baker's draft. 
I opened three new issues on April 16 that I think need to be
resolved in order to do that.

(1) Use of XPTR records for SSP.  The idea here is to create a more
general policy mechanism that can be used by WS-* and such.  There
were about 20 messages discussing this from 5 people.  I'm not
reading a clear consensus on this.

(2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in
discussion, mostly saying "if you support TXT, don't bother with
anything else."  Again, no clear consensus.

(3) Upward query vs. wildcard publication.  27 messages in discussion
from 15 people.  Most of the discussion was a rehash of the idea of
associating semantics with DNS zone-cuts, which we had already
discussed and rejected.  I have also been trying to get an opinion
from DNSOP on the idea of a one-level upward search (which I think
solves 90% of the problem), but haven't gotten any response.

So I don't know what to write in a revision of the draft.  I could
just write my opinions, but that's basically what's in the
draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02 draft already and doesn't make any progress
toward unifying the different proposals.  I want to get something
done soon, well before the July 2 deadline.

-Jim
_______________________________________________
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