ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Potential DKIM re-chartering...

2008-10-30 18:32:10

On Oct 30, 2008, at 1:42 PM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

Well my principal proposal would be to add elements into the key record to allow a key to be associated with a URI from which a cert chain vouching said key may be obtained.

I already have an ID submitted!

I could add to this list, but perhaps it remains too soon.

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-otis-dkim-tpa-adsp-00.txt

It would seem the changes being made to DKIM by ADSP prevent adoption of a compatible method to authorize a third-party domains. Strangely, the ADSP effort appears aimed at satisfying a results header that normally includes authorized SMTP clients.

-Doug



From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org on behalf of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Mon 10/13/2008 8:11 AM
To: ietf-dkim
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Potential DKIM re-chartering...


Hi All,

In Dublin [1] we had a few proposals for new work items and presentation
of some related work (Murray's stuff). We agreed with the AD that we
would not start a discussion about potentially re-chartering until after ADSP and the overview were out of the WG. Well, we're there now, ADSP is
with the AD, the overview write-up is in Barry's queue, and Pasi is ok
with us starting this discussion now.

So, can folks who'd like to propose that we recharter to take on new
work post an I-D describing what they'd like and then start a thread
here so we can discuss the various ideas. Note that the I-D cutoff for
-00's is October 27th. Of course, if you already have an I-D then just
start a thread. Please don't make a proposal without an I-D (the new
tools make posting a draft so easy, I think this is fair).

Barry and I would like us to be able to discuss the various proposals
in Minneapolis with a view to crafting new charter text to send to Pasi
shortly thereafter if we see rough consensus for taking on some new
work items. (BTW - I suspect that if we have no new work items, we
won't need a DKIM slot at every IETF in future and so we'll be very
close to declaring victory, which is always nice:-)

And just in case some folks aren't clear - any new charter text
would just be a proposal for a new charter, the IESG make the decision
as to whether or not to ok that after requesting feedback from the
broader IETF community.

Regards,
Stephen.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/minutes?item=minutes72.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

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>