[ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

Folks, G'day. The latest version of: RFC 4871 DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures -- Errata draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 was posted 8 days ago. A competing proposal was posted 2 days ago. On reviewing the list activity

Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

Dave, You've seen several votes for the alternate, but in any case Jim has offered alternate language, which i am inclined to accept. I would be happy to proceed, however, with a poll on the process, if you would like. Eliot ___ NOTE WELL: This list

Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

Eliot Lear wrote: > You've seen several votes for the alternate, but in any case Jim has > offered alternate language, which i am inclined to accept. I would be > happy to proceed, however, with a poll on the process, if you would like. 1. Jim sent the only posting that I read as simple, di

Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

On 2/12/09 7:31 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Eliot Lear wrote: >> You've seen several votes for the alternate, but in any case Jim has >> offered alternate language, which i am inclined to accept. I would >> be happy to proceed, however, with a poll on the process, if you >> would like. > > >

Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

Eliot Lear wrote: > On 2/12/09 7:31 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> 1. Jim sent the only posting that I read as simple, direct support. > > And Murray also indicated support, at least in part, In part is different from complete. I happen to support your proposal... in part. Unfortunately, the re

Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

Just to be clear, what will happen next if there is a WGLC is that I will post isssues. There may be quite a number of them. If on the other hand, we can poll on process, I will refrain from posting issues later. Eliot On 2/12/09 7:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: > > > Eliot Lear wrote: >> On 2/1

Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

Dave CROCKER wrote: > Consequently, I'd like to ask that we go through a working group Last Call > for > rfc4871-errata-02. Barry and I are just pinging about with Pasi on some process stuff but will be back to get this started/sorted in a day or two. S. __

Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:39:45 +0100 Eliot Lear wrote: >On 2/12/09 7:31 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote: >> >> >> Eliot Lear wrote: >>> You've seen several votes for the alternate, but in any case Jim has >>> offered alternate language, which i am inclined to accept. I would >>> be happy to proceed, howev

Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:31:37 -0800 Dave CROCKER wrote: > > >Eliot Lear wrote: >> You've seen several votes for the alternate, but in any case Jim has >> offered alternate language, which i am inclined to accept. I would be >> happy to proceed, however, with a poll on the process, if you would l

Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:39:45 +0100 Eliot Lear wrote: Yes, and I would prefer the multi-stage approach, because I consider draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 to be excessive to the problem at hand, lacking consideration for the appropriate

Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Douglas Otis wrote: > The WG should also discuss the merits of making a statement warning > against a domain overlapping their valid namespace with fictitious or > token i= values. While such overlap should be discouraged to avoid > confusing recipients as to what the i= val

Re: [ietf-dkim] Requesting working group Last Call on: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > IMHO, it is sufficient to indicate that the local-part of "i=" is opaque. > Absent any secure indication from the signer that such a value is stable > and/or maps to an address, the verifier is thus admonished against jumping > to that conclusion, even if they do app