Barry, Dave, and others,
Thanks for proposing this interesting split. As I'll discuss below, at
this point I think I have more questions than opinions. But I have at
least one opinion.
1. I recognize that sometimes good ideas have their own schedules, but
I consider it unfortunate that the WG
On 11/01/11 12:12, Eliot Lear wrote:
1. I recognize that sometimes good ideas have their own schedules, but
I consider it unfortunate that the WG had to spend time to go through
WGLC, resolve open issues, and then for the authors and chairs to
reorganize the work.
Just one quick
On 07/Jan/11 21:58, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Here's the proposal that Barry just announced, for splitting the DKIM
specification into a DKIM-specific portion and an underlying, more generic
portion that could be re-purposed for other services. It's current working
acronym is DOSETA.
I'm
On 1/10/2011 5:28 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
1. Review Abuse: We held a Last Call on rfc4871bis that closed on 22
October 2010. Many of us put considerable focus into a detailed edit of
the document at that time, and to hear that other than surgical changes
to the document in response to Last
The new docs willuse the CORRECTED rfc4871bis text.
Considering how far along we are with rfc4871bis, and keeping mind mind
the objections from Jim and others, my inclination would be to finish and
publish rfc4871bis as a standalone document, and after that do the DOSETA
document that, as
John R. Levine:
The new docs willuse the CORRECTED rfc4871bis text.
Considering how far along we are with rfc4871bis, and keeping mind mind
the objections from Jim and others, my inclination would be to finish and
publish rfc4871bis as a standalone document, and after that do the
(if this doesn't belong on this list, please let me know)
RFC 4871 states:
h= Acceptable hash algorithms (plain-text; OPTIONAL, defaults to
allowing all algorithms). A colon-separated list of hash
algorithms that might be used. Signers and Verifiers MUST
support the
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of McDowell, Brett
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:33 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org WG
Subject: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871 interoperability conflict over h= tag
(if this doesn't
Hi Brett,
At 14:33 11-01-11, McDowell, Brett wrote:
RFC 4871 states:
h= Acceptable hash algorithms (plain-text; OPTIONAL, defaults to
allowing all algorithms). A colon-separated list of hash
algorithms that might be used. Signers and Verifiers MUST
support the
On Jan 11, 2011, at 4:12 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
2. The mechanisms in DOSETA were designed for DKIM. If we are generalizing
along the lines that Dave has mentioned, I would prefer that DOSETA in
particular not advance to draft status, as it ought to be tested in at least
two separate
Hi Rolf,
I think your concerns are reasonable. But I think the marketing of DKIM can
be managed and maintained as it has its own momentum now; meanwhile, the idea
of creating a new technology (say, something that protects HTTP transactions)
that looks 95% like DKIM but is called something
11 matches
Mail list logo
