As you've seen from Stephen's post about the saag notes, we have
agreement from Russ Housley that we're ready to go into the
working-group charter process, in which the IESG and other groups will
review the proposed charter and decide whether to charter a working
group with it. I'm attaching the c
We have a very aggressive schedule, and a lot of things to talk about
-- and, clearly, a lot of things we WANT to talk about -- before we
meet that schedule. That we might have a better chance of succeeding,
I'm asking people to keep the discussion focused by following these
guidelines:
1. I have
This is a brief summary of what happened in the DKIM sessions at IETF
65. Detailed minutes will follow to the DKIM mailing list when I can
get them cleaned up, probably early next week.
Note that the reply-to for this message has been set to the DKIM
mailing list, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
-
The first DKIM working group session was on Monday, 20 March 2006, from
1300 to 1500 CST, in the Cortez C/D room.
Discussion of issues for draft-ietf-dkim-threats; few issues left, open
issues covered, document should be ready for final ver
In case anyone needs them, here are useful links:
Meeting materials, including agenda and slides used:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=65
(search for "DKIM")
Jabber logs:
http://www.ietf.org/meetings/ietf-logs/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/2006-03-20.html
http://www.ietf
Here is the promised summary of the issues presented at IETF65, and my
interpretation of the resolution. I've made a vague distinction here
between "Open", meaning that the issue still needs work, and
"Accepted", meaning that the issue's accepted and is being resolved,
and the resolution will be c
I have posted the draft minutes and issues list to the IETF65 meeting
materials web site; you can find them here:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/minutes/dkim.txt
We're going to put a one-week last-call period on the minutes, so get
your comments in by the end of the day on 4 March (smal
> We're going to put a one-week last-call period on the minutes, so get
> your comments in by the end of the day on 4 March (small changes can
> go directly to me; post to the list if you want to make sure everyone
> sees it). On 5 March, we will declare them final and start taking
> action on the
The Dallas meeting minutes are now accepted as final. Find them here:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/minutes/dkim.txt
Barry Leiba, DKIM Working Group co-chair ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
_
Some people joined the jabber room early, but we then had problems --
people lost contact with the room, couldn't re-join, and so on.
Problems seemed resolved by 15:15 GMT, and we decided to start at
15:30, to give everyone time to get back on.
Meeting was called to order at 15:30 GMT. Agenda p
Now that WGLC is over, Eric, Stephen, and I need to look at the issues
list and status, and get the -base doc ready to send to the IESG. I
expect to post more on that here by the end of the week, so this is a
reminder that WGLC's ended, as well as a placeholder for the "real"
status note.
Barry
We have Internet-Drafts from Phill and Doug, as well as the now-expired
-allman-ssp draft, which Jim is working on an edit to resubmit, so it
soon will no longer be expired. Note that the new draft will still be
-allman-ssp for now, not -dkim-ssp. So how will we proceed?
Dave suggested in Montré
Stephen and I aren't able to connect to the DKIM jabber room, and we
haven't gotten an answer yet from the support folks. And so we have to
cancel the meeting. We'll try again next week, if the room is working
then.
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.
(As always, if you have comments about this summary itself, leave the
subject as is... otherwise, please change the subject appropriately
when you reply.)
The meeting was called to order at 1505 UTC on 12 Oct.
In attendance were Barry Leiba, Eric Allman, Jim Fenton, Mike Thomas,
Dave Crocker, Pete
> 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
In discussions with the IESG to sort through their "discuss" comments,
I had a talk with Lisa Dusseault, and she had one point that I want to
bring back to the mailing list: I don't think we considered, in our
discussions of multiple signatures, multiple *linked* signatures, which
could work T
Filling the working group in on the status of the DKIM base document:
* It was on the agenda for the 14 Dec IESG telechat.
* Before the telechat, four DISCUSS votes were registered:
- Sam Hartman
- Cullen Jennings
- Lisa Dusseault
- Bill Fenner
* Bill's DISCUSS was just on an ABNF error, which
Having made our decision on requirement 5.3.10, and having rolled in
the final comments from WG last call (Jim and Mike have let me know
that that's done), we seem to have finished the SSP requirements
document. What remains for it is that Mike will post a final draft and
will post here a deta
For those who haven't seen this, I thought y'all might be interested:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070531/ap_on_hi_te/spam_arrest_10
SEATTLE - A 27-year-old man described as one of the world's most
prolific spammers was arrested Wednesday, and federal auth
For the moment, here's the information about the DKIM session in
Chicago:
DKIM Session 1 (2 hours)
Tuesday, Afternoon Session I 1300-1500
Room Name: Breakout 7
I'll remind everyone that the schedule often changes, that this isn't
cast in stone, and that the IETF meeting runs from Monday morning
So everyone knows: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-05 has just been published as
RFC 5016. Thanks to everyone for the work on it, and especially to Mike for
taking the author/editor job.
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/
Owing to confusion about whether and when we're to have a teleconference, and to
concerns about whether this week's announcement was sufficiently timely, given
that confusion, Stephen and I think it best to cancel it, and, in fact, NOT TO
HOLD ANY of the teleconferences that we'd planned. We'll
I have put a draft summary of yesterday afternoon's meeting here:
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/08mar/minutes/dkim.txt
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipa
Last week, Your Favourite Working Group Chairs had some discussions with each
other, with Pasi (our Area Director), and with some working group participants.
We were looking for ideas to keep the group moving forward at a reasonable
pace,
given some of the differences on the issues and the volu
Now that the ssp-04 draft is out, reflecting consensus on yet more text, we'd
like to make sure we keep discussion focused on what's still undecided. To
that
end:
1. Stephen will, over the next few days, be looking at the open issues and the
mailing-list discussion, and will be looking for wh
> We missed the dealine by almost 2 weeks. We might ask for an exception,
> I suppose. I have no idea whether they are ever granted.
I asked Marcia nicely, and after the flames subsided[1], she said OK, submit
the
request and she'd see what she could do.
So I put in a request for a two-hour s
Stephen, Pasi, and I have been considering the status and direction of the DKIM
working group, and we think some clarification and procedural steering is
important right now. Here are some thoughts of the chairs, Stephen and me, on
where we are and what we need to do next.
Recent discussion ha
Responding to Dave's, Doug's, and John's replies (I'll get to Jon's later)...
Dave says...
>> Recent discussion has brought up the point that, while we had consensus in
>> 4871 about i=,
>
> Recent discussion also brought up the point that this assertion was factually
> incorrect and that there i
Jon says...
> 4871 is in my opinion as an author clear about i=. You have but to read it and
> the informative notes. One might think it's amorphous, but it's at least an
> explicit amorphousness. It survived a rough consensus, at least implicitly. I
> will summarize 4871 as "signers can do whateve
Pasi, Stephen, and I had a conference call to sort out where we can go with the
errata, the idea of a 4871-bis, and so on. This summarizes what we think,
where
we'd like the working group to go, and what the working group needs to decide.
The first point is that while 2/3 of the working group
This thread has been split from Dave's long note.
Here's what I want to try, in order to convert the "majority vote" into what
Stephen and I would be happy to call "rough consensus". I have not discussed
this yet with Stephen, in the interest of getting it out here more quickly, so
he
may fee
This thread has been split from Dave's long note.
Pasi, Dave and others continue to push for submitting
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata as "errata", rather than as an RFC with fresh
IETF
rough consensus. Dave asks what I think is a fair question, looking for more
guidance than "I know it when
I've uploaded the following draft agenda to the IETF 74 meeting materials page.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/74/materials.html
This is a first stab at a draft, and I've made wild guesses at the times. If
you
have better suggestions for dividing up the time, let Stephen and me know, at
My apologies for the delay in this; I meant to send this early this week, after
getting back in town, but... then I didn't get to it.
The chairs appreciate the view that the "errata" draft makes a lot of changes.
Nevertheless, the view that those changes are too great... is quite a minority
vie
I've replaced the DKIM agenda with a version (below) that includes information
for joining a WebEx online meeting that we'll use to try to make things better
for remote participants.
Barry
--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair (barryle...@computer.org)
http://internetmessagingtechnology.org
> I've replaced the DKIM agenda with a version (below) that includes information
> for joining a WebEx online meeting that we'll use to try to make things better
> for remote participants.
Please use this version instead.
--
Barry Leiba, DKIM working group chair (barryle...@computer.org)
http://i
Regarding the "errata" draft, two points:
1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking, and Dave
has
already posted about these. The response looks good. We'll look at a final
tally on Friday, 3 April, and ask Dave to push out a new draft then.
Please do not discuss thi
In the IETF 74 DKIM meeting, we had a brief discussion about the current state
of
ADSP, given the recent discussions on i= (and other things). It seems to the
chairs that ADSP isn't severely affected, and that changes would be needed only
in section 2.7, "Author Signature", which is the only p
I don't mean to stop the discussion that's going on; if y'all want to have
this,
'round and 'round again, it's OK with the chairs.
That said, the discussion doesn't look like it's going to answer the questions
we
need to sort out by Friday, so let me try to nudge things a bit.
Jim has propose
> The current proposal is to remove i= here, and rework the text so that ADSP
> uses d= only.
The chairs note that this proposal has rough consensus.
Jim has suggested that if we do this, and in view of the discussion of "Author"
vs "Author Domain", we should make sure the documents consistentl
> 1. On the content, we hashed out a few things that needed tweaking, and Dave
> has already posted about these. The response looks good.
The chairs note that Dave's proposed changes have rough consensus. We
understand
that Dave has a new draft with the current version of those changes ready
41 matches
Mail list logo
