ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Broken signature analysis

2010-02-24 13:55:44


On 2/24/2010 11:43 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I wasn't thinking of wide activation necessarily, it might be
something that, eg, just MAAWG members and implementors might
selective enable over an interop testing period.

This isn't the first time I've heard DKIM interop mentioned recently, so now 
I'm curious: Are we interested in repeating the work done in Dallas?  If so, 
what are we hoping to learn from a second round?

Apart from ADSP, I don't think DKIM has changed enough to make that effort 
interesting right now.


Thanks for raising this.  I meant to follow up on it.  There were a couple of 
comments made during sessions at MAAWG and my sense was that the audience(s) 
did 
think there would be utility in more testing.

The previous interop event targeted basic, direct signing and validation.  My 
sense is that the interest now is extending utility, such as:

    1)  exploring interesting scenarios that seem to be causing failures.

    2)  perhaps exploring use of d= subdomains for differentially labeling 
different sub-streams

    3)  exploring the use of multiple signatures

If the interest is in these types of issues, we might find it easier and more 
productive to have a distributed event, over a couple of weeks.  Still needs 
planning, scenarios and interaction, but not necessarily a single room with 
people in it.

Thoughts?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html