On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:47:01 +0100 Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
Let's try get back to Jim's issues. What we need to do is help
get ssp-00 out so that we have an I-D as a basis for discussion.
What I'd like to do is get a sense of what we'd like to see
in draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-00, in terms of the options that Jim
(as editor) has chosen. (So please don't start with your
favourite alternative approach, at least not in this thread.)
At this stage its perfectly fine to want to see how something
pans out, and ask for it to be included now, but later ask for it
to be changed/removed - this isn't WGLC, we're just helping the
authors decide what to include in the -00 version.
I think that Jim is planning to edit -00 in the coming days
so if you say nothing, he'll just pick what he wants to include.
If you say too much, he'll also just pick what he wants to
include. If its inconclusive, he'll also just pick what he
wants to include.
To that end, please respond, by Monday, to this with +1/-1's as
described below (the description of the issues is from Jim's
original mail [1]):
(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.
Issue#1: +1 - include use of XPTR as part of ssp-00
Issue#1: -1 - exclude use of XPTR from ssp-00
+1
(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.
Issue#2: +1 - Define how to use a TXT RR for SSP policies (with or
without something else)
Issue#2: -1 - Don't use TXT at all, only use new RRs for SSP
+1
(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.
Issue#3: +1 - Define an upward query based approach to finding SSP
statements
Issue#3: -1 - Define a wildcard based approach to finding SSP
statemetns
-1
Stephen.
[1] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q2/007537.html
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html