Hi,
On 3/28/11 3:34 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
As you'll see from the minutes (available at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/80/materials.html ), consensus in
the room and among remote participants at the IETF 80 DKIM session was
to close the working group after the 4871bis and mailng-lists
documents have been finished. From the minutes:
--------------------------
4. Discussion of the future of the working group
Two charter items not yet done:
3. Collect data on the deployment, interoperability, and
effectiveness of the Author Domain Signing Practices protocol
(RFC 5617), and determine if/when it's ready to advance on the
standards track. Update it at Proposed Standard, advance it to
Draft Standard, deprecate it, or determine another disposition,
as appropriate.
4. Taking into account the data collected in (2) and (3), update
the overview and deployment/operations documents. These are
considered living documents, and should be updated periodically,
as we have more real-world experience.
- Is there energy and desire to do this?
- Should we recharter instead for different work?
- Should we close the working group?
Consensus in room and jabber is to close. Will confirm on the mailing list.
I seem to remember that there was neither consensus for close, nor for
continue. But I was a remote participant, so I may have it wrong.
I wonder whether there should be a followup on the figures, presented by
Murray in the implementation report. Excellent work (thanks Murray), but
are we satisfied with the outcome? Is 93% successful verification OK? Is
it good, is it good enough, is it bad? What if SMTP had been designed in
such a way, that in 93% of all cases messages were delivered with
contents unchanged, but in 7% of all cases message content was lost or
malformed? Would it have been a success?
What are these 7% DKIM signature verification failures, are these:
* spammers?
* MTA's violating the rules?
* MTA's fixing stuff, that did not comply with the standards?
* other?
Furthermore, I'm not sure whether the DKIM WG has concluded on thinking
about the value of DKIM, what it can be used for. Is it's purpose
limited to providing input to a reputation engine? Is that it? Or is
there more than that?
Anyway, these things will not fit into the current charter...
/rolf
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html