ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter update proposal

2009-10-18 12:20:52
Barry Leiba wrote:

Coming back to this: I've still seen very little direct input on the
charter proposal.  JD likes it.  Dave made some specific comments,
which I responded to; there've been no other comments on what Dave's
said.  There've been no other specific proposals for changes to the
text.


Franck suggested gathering data on whether DKIM has been useful.  I
responded to that, saying that I don't think it's a necessary issue
for chartering at this stage.  Agreement or disagreement with that
would be useful.

Bill suggested looking at extensions for additional signature
delegation, Michael Hammer agreed, and a thread branched off from
there.  Is that still an active consideration for the charter, or
not? Charles wants to see something more about guidance for
mailing lists. Is that an active consideration?


Barry,

(shaking head)

Is there a reason why my suggestions are off the table?

Namely, codify the existing specification and specifically adding 
simple text that imply:

    Forwarders SHOULD|MUST NOT break ADSP domain messages.

or

    Forwarders  SHOULD|MUST take into account ADSP Domains
    before stripping and resigning or signing ADSP domain messages.

Why is this not a legitimate consideration for rechartering - Codify 
the existing RFC specifications? Can you explain why it would not be 
thus not even include it in your suggestions?

I believe the ADSP/FORWARDER guidelines are needed to help SMTP and 
List Server developers and implementators guide their software designs 
or operational setups.

I even suggested a far fetch possibility to "deprecate" RFC 5617, if 
thats all even IETF procedurally possible, to help remove this 
on-going dispute.  I can understand this would be extreme, but there 
was a agreement but another person with this.

--
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html