[ietf-dkim] Proposed changes to MLM draft
Rolf E. Sonneveld
R.E.Sonneveld at sonnection.nl
Tue Aug 31 02:29:50 PDT 2010
On 08/30/2010 08:03 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I'd like some help tackling the next version of the MLM draft. People
> seem to have varying ideas about what should be removed and perhaps
> appear in other documents now. I need some consensus on a direction
> in which to proceed.
> So can I please get some +1s/-1s on each of the following:
> (1) Split the document into three documents: A DKIM MLM BCP that
> discusses signing and verifying in the context of MLMs with no
> value-add items addressed, a DKIM MLM Informational that discusses
> possible value-add enhancements to MLMs in the DKIM world, and a
> non-WG BCP about mailing lists irrespective of DKIM (Dave's proposal);
+1, but see my previous message about normative vs informational.
> (2) Tear out everything having to do with making author signatures
> survive list relaying, dropping all that text altogether, and instead
> pointing people at S/MIME or PGP (John's proposal);
Removing signatures/traces because
a) some domains don't know how to use ADSP and/or
b) some assessors don't implement RFC4871 correctly
sounds like a bad idea to me. The best the document can do here, is to
describe what are the pro's of keeping signatures and what are the pro's
of removing them, in an operational environment.
> (3) Something else (and specify what that might be).
> If you support any of the above, please take a few minutes to include
> some pointers to what text you want changed/exported and in what way.
> Actual diffs would be ideal, but I'll take point-form commentary as well.
I'll try to review the -02 version in the next couple of days.
> If you advocate for a general MLM BCP, this will be a non-WG document
> (it's outside of our charter) so I'd love to get some MLM operators
> and developers involved. (Maybe this should take place on ietf-822 or
> maybe on a new non-WG list; suggestions welcome.) Expressions of
> interest in that work would be appreciated. I'll approach the APPS
> ADs about a venue.
IMO MLM's need a re-design to bring them in line with today's e-mail
technologies, but inevitably this will lead to (new) MUA requirements.
As these things only have a small (or no) DKIM component I fully agree
to move that work to another list.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ietf-dkim