[ietf-dkim] Authorizing List Domains
hsantos at isdg.net
Tue Sep 28 19:32:53 PDT 2010
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> On 28/09/10 23:02, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> On 9/27/10 9:47 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>>> On Monday, September 27, 2010 4:19 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>> TPA-Label involves ADSP being discussed on the dkim list.
> I've no idea precisely what Doug means here, but to avoid
> doubt: the DKIM WG has a charter that does not currently
> include work on TPA nor other possible alternatives, nor
> any other tweak or alternative to ADSP.
> There does seem to be interest (though nothing like
> consensus) in these however so we're not trying to stop
> discussion for now, in the hope that one or other garners
> sufficient consensus that we might re-charter. (And in
> any case, its clear that asking people on this list to
> stop typing is currently pointless;-)
> So these are all "unofficial" activities in the sense
> that there is no plan for the WG to produce any RFCs.
Early this year, the group "new goals" and correct me if I
misunderstood, was to implement, experiment and collect data,
especially for ADSP and Mailing List Software designs.
If I recall, we gave ourselves at least 1 year to collect data.
This is happening now. We implemented DKIM + POLICY, the R&D and
statistics collection has commenced, and specifically with a focus
towards policy and interaction/associations with Mailing List
Software. The market research is very clear there is a strong interest
for third party authorization protocols.
ASDP as it stands now has limited value. But it offers an extensions
feature and we are leveraging this to explore third party
authorization solutions - the missing big piece in all this.
While I clearly understand the charter does not include new I-D, I
believe in the same way the "Out of Scope" Reputation modeling helped
alter 4871 with 4871bis, we can also learn from the "out of scope"
ADSP extensions R&D to help codify and fine tune RFC 5617 (ADSP) with
Hector Santos, CTO
More information about the ietf-dkim