Re: [ietf-dkim] San Francisco

Sean Shen wrote: > Wondering whether somebody can give a overview of current deployment > situation of DKIM, not about the draft-ietf-dkim-deployment, but the current > situations (commercial? experiments?). Or maybe there is already some info > source out there? can someone show me where it is?

Re: [ietf-dkim] New version - draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-01

Dave CROCKER wrote: > Generally, the changes dealt with: Sorry, forgot an important item: 3. Changed section 6.3 and Appendix D references to be to SDID (d=) Since the new consensus appears to be that i= has semantics that are entirely undefined, it does not seem possible that the wg wou

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871

Eliot Lear wrote: > I think perhaps it would help, Dave, if you could step through the > ramifications of your concerns. I don't understand your question. What is it about the Introduction to the Errata that is not sufficiently clear or complete? You appear to be asking about the ramificati

[ietf-dkim] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-01.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Domain Keys Identified Mail Working Group of the IETF. Title : RFC 4871 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures -- Errata Author(s) : D. Crocker

Re: [ietf-dkim] New version - draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-01

,--- 3. Section 2.8 Signing Domain Identifier (SDID) Original Text: (None. Additional text.) Corrected Text: A single, opaque value that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM and which refers to the identity claiming responsibility for the introduction of a message into the m

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871

As I wrote, I'm neutral to positive on MOST of the errata, but my memory and Dave's differ. On 2/2/09 8:26 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > 1. The issue was not raised. To be fair, the issue was raised after last call, and it was vague. > This guidance is not in dkim-base (purposefully), > but I beli

[ietf-dkim] New version - draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-01

Folks, Howdy. A new version of the Errata draft has been submitted. Text and diffs are at: . The revision attempts to reflect the online discussion and apparent consensus. It's likely that I've over-interpreted the consensus. Further discussion in the

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Charles Lindsey wrote: > We don't need to propose such a standard now, but we DO need to ensure > that we do not tie up the wording in such a way that would make such a > future standard impossible (not that Dave's wording has any such effect as > currently written)

Re: [ietf-dkim] dkim usage examples

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:26 PM, J.D. Falk wrote: > Al Iverson wrote: >> Not bad questions, but ones that I don't really have answers for. I >> could tell you what I *want* out of authentication, but that leads us >> to things like *cough* disposition instructions for bad mail and >> things like

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871

On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:01:21 -, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Charles Lindsey > wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:46:25 -, Al Iverson >> >> wrote: >> >>> So the UAID is essentially a sender-created identifier used for >>> whatever purpose a sender

Re: [ietf-dkim] San Francisco

>-Original Message- >From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org >[mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of J.D. Falk >Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 12:28 AM >To: DKIM IETF WG >Subject: [ietf-dkim] San Francisco > >Will this WG be meeting in SF? I'd assumed not, but with all >thi

Re: [ietf-dkim] New version - draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-01

> > 3. Section 2.8 Signing Domain Identifier (SDID) > >Original Text: (None. Additional text.) > >Corrected Text: A single, opaque value that is the mandatory > payload output of DKIM and which refers to the identity claiming > responsibility for the introduction of a message into th

Re: [ietf-dkim] New version - draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-01

On Feb 2, 2009, at 4:01 PM, Siegel, Ellen wrote: > >> >> 3. Section 2.8 Signing Domain Identifier (SDID) >> >> Original Text: (None. Additional text.) >> >> Corrected Text: A single, opaque value that is the mandatory >> payload output of DKIM and which refers to the identity claiming

Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871

On 2/2/09 8:48 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Eliot Lear wrote: >> I think perhaps it would help, Dave, if you could step through the >> ramifications of your concerns. > > I don't understand your question. What is it about the Introduction > to the Errata that is not sufficiently clear or compl