mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft

2008-10-13 07:12:23
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 22:29:11 +0100, Lisa Dusseault  
<lisa(_dot_)dusseault(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

A)  auth-header to not require any feature advertising or  
auto-configuration
B) auth-header to normatively RECOMMEND some kind of feature advertising
C) auth-header to normatively REQUIRE some kind of feature advertising


A, or at most B + DKIM signing.

A means the minimal amout of handwaving that points to possible solutions,  
and maybe mentions some "future work".

Separately, the unspecified feature advertising or auto-conf should be
(choose one or more):
1) IMAP Capabilities advertising
2) E/SMTP capabilities
3) IMAP annotations
4) Something else
5) Nothing

1/2/3 are all possible future work, not to be done in a rush.
4 includes (I presume) DKIM signing.
But for the time being I would rather stick with 5. We need the header out  
there with well-defined synyax/semantics so people can start using it for  
all sorts of purposes, and we need it there NOW, at the same time as SSP  
is being released, so MTAs can get on with implementing the two things  
together.

The problem we are now being asked to address is MUAs, and their  
communication with MTAs, which is a separate topic (and one on which the  
IETF has traditionally kept away from).

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>