Eliot Lear wrote:
The real question for me now is simply this: will those people who
are writing the overview now commit to updating it after SSP is
complete? And I for one want to see SSP complete quickly.
Irrespective of whether we publish something now or not, the authors of
the overview
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
It is sufficient to have last call on the policy requirements.
Well, it would be if we got some last-call comments.
Can I ask folks to read ssp-reqs and send their comments please.
Stephen.
___
NOTE WELL: This list
Hi,
I am more confused than ever, I suppose:
Are you suggesting that deploying SSP will break dkim-base? Could you
explain how, if so?
Yes and No.
The answer to your question depends on many factors, but it is really
quite simple. This scenario is not new. Code Red and similar threats
Michael Thomas wrote:
I think this touches on the important question about all of this: what are
we trying to accomplish right now? My feeling is that we want as quickly as
possible to fertilize the fields with as many DKIM signers as possible.
This is a very straightforward proposition and
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 04:07:32AM -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
The view that -base is sufficient presumes a) quite a high level of
expertise, I believe, and b) quite a high level of effort. Most managers
and decisions makers, out in the larger Internet, do not have either.
You seem to be
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:20:28 -, Powers, Jot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It has come to my attention that perhaps I confused the discussions with
fixing -base due to the FWS stuff, and overview.
And speaking of the FWS stuff, I demonstrated that an actual BUG existed
in base, and Frank
Eliot Lear wrote:
Hi,
Given two sets of RECEIVERS:
RECEIVER-A: Legacy DKIM-BASE system. Supports DKIM-BASE only
RECEIVER-B: Updated to support DKIM-BASE+SSP
and given a DOMAIN that has determined that it better to use SSP
than not use SSP, therefore it uses a strong SSP policy for
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:43:58 -, Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, would folks prefer to:
B. Defer the Overview document until the SSP specification is complete.
+1
--
Charles H. Lindsey -At Home, doing my own thing
Tel: +44 161 436
On 3/12/07 5:43 AM, Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled:
In other words, would folks prefer to:
A. Expedite publishing the Overview documents, in order to facilitate
development and deployment of the -base specification (with an update
later on for SSP), or
+1
B. Defer the Overview
Eliot Lear wrote:
Jot,
The overview isn't keeping DKIM from the world. In fact you guys can
sign today, if you don't already (haven't checked).
Eliot, you are, of course, correct. But that rather misses the point.
The point is what will facilitate adoption. (Why is it that the IETF
Jot,
The overview isn't keeping DKIM from the world. In fact you guys can
sign today, if you don't already (haven't checked). The real question
for me now is simply this: will those people who are writing the
overview now commit to updating it after SSP is complete? And I for one
want to
On 3/14/07 8:00 AM, Eliot Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled:
Jot,
The overview isn't keeping DKIM from the world. In fact you guys can
sign today, if you don't already (haven't checked). The real question
for me now is simply this: will those people who are writing the
overview now commit
Powers, Jot wrote:
On 3/14/07 8:01 AM, Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled:
Powers, Jot wrote:
On 3/12/07 5:43 AM, Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] scribbled:
In other words, would folks prefer to:
A. Expedite publishing the Overview documents, in order to facilitate
development and
Dave Crocker wrote:
Eliot Lear wrote:
Jot,
The overview isn't keeping DKIM from the world. In fact you guys can
sign today, if you don't already (haven't checked).
Eliot, you are, of course, correct. But that rather misses the point.
The point is what will facilitate adoption. (Why
Powers, Jot wrote:
We would DKIM sign now (and did a while ago) if our appliance vendor
supported DKIM, which they plan on doing, once it is a standard
for some value of standard. (They have said summer '07)
It is already an approved proposed standard - still waiting for its
RFC number, but
11:11 AM
To: Eliot Lear
Cc: Untitled; Powers, Jot
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt
Eliot Lear wrote:
Jot,
The overview isn't keeping DKIM from the world. In fact
you guys can
sign today, if you don't already (haven't checked).
Eliot
Dave Crocker wrote:
The real question
for me now is simply this: will those people who are writing the
overview now commit to updating it after SSP is complete? And I for
one want to see SSP complete quickly.
Whether the current document is updated, or a new document is written,
or an
On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
Dave Crocker wrote:
The real question
for me now is simply this: will those people who are writing the
overview now commit to updating it after SSP is complete? And I
for one want to see SSP complete quickly.
Whether the current document
Steve Atkins wrote:
On Mar 14, 2007, at 1:28 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
I could be wrong, but I believe he was referring to backward
compatibility issues with a new legacy market of DKIM-BASE only
systems vs DKIM-BASE PLUS SSS systems.
Are you suggesting that deploying SSP will break
Hector Santos:
This is exactly the same problem that the industry evolved to over the
past two decades and what has brought us together here. The problem is
dealing with the legacy market of old SMTP systems and how the bad guys
use this to gain entry into systems. If that wasn't the
Wietse Venema wrote:
Hector Santos:
This is exactly the same problem that the industry evolved to over the
past two decades and what has brought us together here. The problem is
dealing with the legacy market of old SMTP systems and how the bad guys
use this to gain entry into systems. If
On Mar 14, 2007, at 6:42 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
We are not talking about DAY 1 of the Internet here. But 35+
years, and we have enough knowledge and insight to know today that
if you can recognize the creation of a potential problem, then it
would be neglectful if a) you didn't bring
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 08:43:58AM -0400, Tony Hansen wrote:
In other words, would folks prefer to:
A. Expedite publishing the Overview documents, in order to facilitate
development and deployment of the -base specification (with an update
later on for SSP), or
+1
--
:: Jeff Macdonald |
Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 08:43:58AM -0400, Tony Hansen wrote:
In other words, would folks prefer to:
A. Expedite publishing the Overview documents, in order to facilitate
development and deployment of the -base specification (with an update
later on for SSP), or
+1
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I don't think we need to agree on the policy implementation to get
overview out.
We do have to have agreement on the requirements.
That sounds like a good compromise.
Frank
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates
On 2007-03-12 16:51, Hector Santos wrote:
I tend to side with the high probability that blindly signing MAIL in a
DKIM-BASE only manner (with no helper support, and I presume you are
just against SSP, not other kind of helpers, like DAC or some other yet
to be established reputation helper)
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:01:03AM -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 2007-03-12 16:51, Hector Santos wrote:
I tend to side with the high probability that blindly signing MAIL in a
DKIM-BASE only manner (with no helper support, and I presume you are
just against SSP, not other kind of helpers,
Jeff Macdonald wrote:
I don't think the 'world' understands that DKIM is just a building
block.
That is one of the reasons for wanting to get the Overview document out
sooner, rather than later.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
J.D. Falk wrote:
On 2007-03-12 16:51, Hector Santos wrote:
I tend to side with the high probability that blindly signing MAIL in
a DKIM-BASE only manner (with no helper support, and I presume you are
just against SSP, not other kind of helpers, like DAC or some other
yet to be established
Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:01:03AM -0700, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 2007-03-12 16:51, Hector Santos wrote:
I tend to side with the high probability that blindly signing MAIL in a
DKIM-BASE only manner (with no helper support, and I presume you are
just against SSP, not other
Dave Crocker wrote:
The -base document does not provide a general systems-framework for
understanding the role of -base, because that was not a goal for -base.
-overview provides that framework.
More generally, the deployment of security-related protocols has a long
history of being
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Message
Signing Service Overview
As you read through this, you will find that the stuff in it dealing
Tony Hansen wrote:
In other words, would folks prefer to:
A. Expedite publishing the Overview documents, in order to facilitate
development and deployment of the -base specification (with an update
later on for SSP), or
B. Defer the Overview document until the SSP specification is complete.
Hi Tony,
My technical and product attraction opinion is:
The original scope (SSP) was on track with addressing with what I
believe were the most marketable features of the product:
- High benefits for exclusive domain policies
- High benefits in exposing the nature of domain usage
As
Tony Hansen:
However, I'd like to hear some discussion on the issue: Should we put
out a version now (without the SSP references), or hold off until SSP is
totally finished?
I would not wait with an Overview document until SSP is ready for
prime time. I would encourage deployment of DKIM-base
Wietse Venema wrote:
Tony Hansen:
However, I'd like to hear some discussion on the issue: Should we put
out a version now (without the SSP references), or hold off until SSP is
totally finished?
I would not wait with an Overview document until SSP is ready for
prime time. I would
On Mar 12, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Tony Hansen:
However, I'd like to hear some discussion on the issue: Should we put
out a version now (without the SSP references), or hold off until
SSP is
totally finished?
I would not wait with an Overview document until SSP is ready
@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt
Tony Hansen:
However, I'd like to hear some discussion on the issue:
Should we put
out a version now (without the SSP references), or hold off
until SSP
is totally finished?
I would not wait
Thomas
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 1:57 PM
To: Wietse Venema
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: I-D
ACTION:draft-ietf-dkim-overview-04.txt
Wietse Venema wrote:
Tony Hansen:
However, I'd like to hear some discussion on the issue:
Should we put
out a version
At 1:34 PM -0400 3/12/07, Wietse Venema wrote:
I would not wait with an Overview document until SSP is ready for
prime time. I would encourage deployment of DKIM-base now so that
we can gain useful experience.
+1
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Domain Assurance Council
--On March 12, 2007 8:43:58 AM -0400 Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, would folks prefer to:
A. Expedite publishing the Overview documents, in order to
facilitate development and deployment of the -base specification
(with an update later on for SSP), or
B. Defer the
On 2007-03-12 11:05, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Mar 12, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Tony Hansen:
However, I'd like to hear some discussion on the issue: Should we put
out a version now (without the SSP references), or hold off until
SSP is totally finished?
I would not wait with
I would not wait with an Overview document until SSP is ready for
prime time. I would encourage deployment of DKIM-base now so that
we can gain useful experience.
I sure hope that -overview is not looked upon as a necessary ingredient
for developing/deploying -base. Because I don't think
J.D. Falk wrote:
On 2007-03-12 11:05, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Mar 12, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
Tony Hansen:
However, I'd like to hear some discussion on the issue: Should we put
out a version now (without the SSP references), or hold off until
SSP is totally finished?
I
Eric Allman wrote:
--On March 12, 2007 8:43:58 AM -0400 Tony Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, would folks prefer to:
A. Expedite publishing the Overview documents, in order to
facilitate development and deployment of the -base specification
(with an update later on for SSP),
45 matches
Mail list logo
