[ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 changes

[Stephen Farrell]

Thanks Bill.

A sequence of +/-1 messages like that might be useful to help Barry
and I assess rough consensus at the roughest level.

(Given that other threads are mostly likely to embody disagreement
with some aspect of the -08 changes.)

S.

Bill.Oxley at cox.com wrote:
> I can live with the proposed changes in this draft as written. 
> 
> Bill Oxley
> Messaging Engineer
> Cox Communications
> 404-847-6397
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org
> [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 9:37 AM
> To: IETF DKIM WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-base-08 submitted
> 
> Most of the changes that Eric made should be non-controversial, 
> involving clarifications and tweaking that have helped us (the draft 
> authors and the working group chairs) explain things to the IESG. 
> Regardless, though, of the non-controversial nature of those changes, 
> the chairs would like the working group to review the document fully.
> 
> The most changes are in two areas:
> 
> The security considerations, where some significant changes went in 
> after discussion with the Security Directorate.  We hope these fall into
> 
> the "non-controversial" category, and we urge the working group to 
> object only with strong reason.
> 
> Section 5.4.1, "Recommended Signature Content".  Stephen has posted a 
> pointer to the extensive IESG comments, but to summarize: there is 
> concern in the IESG that, given no guidance at all, some signers will 
> create perfectly compliant signatures that no verifier will accept even 
> after verification succeeds, resulting in an interoperability problem. 
> The new version of section 5.4.1 is thus attempting to give minimal 
> advice, which might be modified by more specific signing policies 
> defined later, to alleviate this concern.
> 
> Please review and discuss.  The chairs would like the group to complete 
> this discussion quickly and efficiently, so that the IESG can send a 
> final draft to the RFC editor very soon.  To that end, we're setting the
> 
> discussion period to a week, and we're asking that we keep any 
> discussion of the -08 draft tightly on track.  The point here is not to 
> rehash anything that's already been discussed, to pick again at anyone's
> 
> pet points, nor to go on about unimportant details.  The point is to 
> decide whether with these changes, the document remains a solid protocol
> 
> that has the rough consensus of this community.
> 
> As usual, when you start a discussion thread, don't use this subject 
> line.  Use something specific to the topic you're discussing.
> 
> A week of discussion -- which ends on 26 January... and starts now.
> 
> --
> Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair  (leiba at watson.ibm.com)
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
> http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>