What John said except I would include #9 as a yes as the data becomes
available.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of John Levine
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:25 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Cc: barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Collecting re-chartering questions
YES to 1, 7, 8. NO to everything else.
(I.e., do find out what people are doing, do not invent new unlikely
to be used mechanisms. Not opposed to 9, but seems contingent on 7
and 8 happening first.)
R's,
John
The list, as I've been able to distill it out of the lengthy
discussions:
1. Advance DKIM base to Draft Standard
2. 3rd-party authorization label:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-otis-dkim-tpa-label/
If you have not read this draft, please do; we'd like to get a good
sense of whether to work on this.
3. Other 3rd-party signing issues (New protocol? Info doc?)
4. Mailing list cohabitation ("dkim=except-mlist")
5. Other mailing list issues (info doc)
6. Specifying ADSP/forwarder guidelines for re-signing (is this
different from mailing list issues?)
7. Collect data on deployment and effectiveness of DKIM base
8. Collect data on deployment and effectiveness of ADSP, and consider
future of ADSP
9. Update overview and deployment/operations documents (info), as new
data are collected.
10. Go dormant for a while, and revisit these questions in 8 to 12
months.
_______________________________________________
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