[ietf-dkim] Collecting re-chartering questions

[MH Michael Hammer (5304)]

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.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of John Levine
> Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 10:25 PM
> To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Cc: barryleiba at computer.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