On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from the Domain Keys Identified Mail WG
> to consider the following document:
>
> - 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures '
> as a Proposed Standard
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
> The spec seemed to be very well written and was easy to read.
On behalf of the document authors and the working group, thank you!
And Pekka, thanks so much for taking the time for a thorough and useful
review. The document authors are working on a detailed response, and
on addressing the issue
I have various minor nits with the base document. Overall I consider the
document ready to go; these nits can be taken care of during AUTH48.
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Introduction
o archival is not a design goal
All of the other bullet items have full sent
Pekka,
Thanks for your good comments, which I will try to answer as best as
I can.
Advice from our AD and WG Chairs was that in Last Call the point is
not to continue Working Group deliberations, but to (a) find minor
wording issues, and (b) find show stoppers. In several cases you
have ma
On 13-Nov-2006, at 22:45, Eric Allman wrote:
By putting the record in a subdomain we believe we have avoided the
major issues associated with TXT records. I would not be surprised
if someone proposes a new RR; if so we'll deal with that as the
time comes. It just didn't seem necessary to
At 4:17 PM +0100 11/14/06, Joe Abley wrote:
For the benefit of those who do not follow dnsext closely, what
friction do you expect?
As Eric stated in his message, we should not rehash old arguments.
This has been beaten to death on the DKIM WG mailing list. As
expected, different people had d
On 14-Nov-2006, at 17:03, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 4:17 PM +0100 11/14/06, Joe Abley wrote:
For the benefit of those who do not follow dnsext closely, what
friction do you expect?
As Eric stated in his message, we should not rehash old arguments.
This has been beaten to death on the DKIM WG
Joe Abley wrote:
Indeed, I wasn't attempting to rehash an old argument specifically about
DKIM.
Excellent. Thanks!
I rather thought that the general difficulties (perceived, actual, or
otherwise) might be worth enumerating in a more general forum so that
they are better-known. I doubt DKI
Eric Allman wrote:
>
> --On November 8, 2006 12:05:07 AM +0200 Pekka Savola
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> ==> what is the expected verifier's behaviour if one or more of
>> these MUST/MUST NOTs doesn't hold? AFAICS, that hasn't been
>> specified, at least not very clearly. Should it be?
>
In reply to Joe Abley, Dave Crocer wrote:
I rather thought that the general difficulties (perceived, actual,
or otherwise) might be worth enumerating in a more general forum
so that they are better-known. I doubt DKIM is the last work which
will feature new types of data being stored in the
On Nov 14, 2006, at 11:03 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 4:17 PM +0100 11/14/06, Joe Abley wrote:
For the benefit of those who do not follow dnsext closely, what
friction do you expect?
As Eric stated in his message, we should not rehash old arguments.
This has been beaten to death on the DK
On 19 nov 2006, at 04.37, Cullen Jennings wrote:
On Nov 14, 2006, at 11:03 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 4:17 PM +0100 11/14/06, Joe Abley wrote:
For the benefit of those who do not follow dnsext closely, what
friction do you expect?
As Eric stated in his message, we should not rehash old ar
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Eric Allman wrote:
Thanks for your good comments, which I will try to answer as best as I can.
Advice from our AD and WG Chairs was that in Last Call the point is not to
continue Working Group deliberations, but to (a) find minor wording issues,
and (b) find show stoppers.
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Eric Allman wrote:
Thanks for your good comments, which I will try to answer as best as I
can.
Advice from our AD and WG Chairs was that in Last Call the point is
not to continue Working Group deliberations, but to (a) find minor
wording issues, and
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cullen Jennings
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 11:03 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> > At 4:17 PM +0100 11/14/06, Joe Abley wrote:
> >> For the benefit of those who do not follow dnsext closely, what
> >> friction do you expect?
> >
> > As Eric stated in his message
15 matches
Mail list logo
