RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status

2008-01-15 Thread J D Falk
Dave Crocker wrote: So effectively the issue has changed from whether 30 days notice really is required to whether what is really only 3 is somehow acceptable. (RFC2418, Section 3.1 And no, this isn't about being a stickler about the rules. It's about being inclusive. Yep...given the

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status

2008-01-15 Thread Eliot Lear
Dear Chairs Dave, Actually, you originally said January 3. Then we heard nothing about the matter for a month. That was the last note I see posted on this matter from your or Steve, with no resolution as to schedule: I tend to agree with Dave on this one. To start with there was a lot

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status

2008-01-15 Thread Jim Fenton
Back on December 11, Stephen Farrell wrote: We're looking at scheduling 1 hour calls each Thursday in Jan (i.e. 3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th and 31st) at 1700 UTC. Dave Crocker wrote: So effectively the issue has changed from whether 30 days notice really is required to whether what is really

RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status

2008-01-15 Thread J D Falk
Jim Fenton wrote: I penciled in the meetings when they were originally proposed, not sure why this is a surprise to people. January 3 and 10 got cancelled for various reasons (proximity to the holidays and lack of 30-day notice, I think) but the rest are still there. Could you recap the

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status

2008-01-15 Thread Dave Crocker
Jim Fenton wrote: Dave Crocker wrote: So effectively the issue has changed from whether 30 days notice really is required to whether what is really only 3 is somehow acceptable. (RFC2418, Section 3.1 I penciled in the meetings when they were originally proposed, not sure why this is a

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status

2008-01-14 Thread Barry Leiba
Stephen Farrell said... Sorry about the delay with this, Barry and I had problems syncing up over the holiday and have only now gotten this done. Stephen is being too kind. He had nothing to do with the delay; that's down to me. And thanks, Stephen, for getting the list posted to the list.

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues status

2008-01-14 Thread Dave Crocker
Barry Leiba wrote: Eliot has set us up for a conference call this Thursday, 17 Jan, as we'd originally scheduled back in December (actually, we'd planned to start on 10 Jan, but we didn't make that; see delay above). It'll go along with a jabber meeting, for which we'll use the normal DKIM

[ietf-dkim] SSP issues status

2008-01-10 Thread Stephen Farrell
Hi All, Sorry about the delay with this, Barry and I had problems syncing up over the holiday and have only now gotten this done. The attached contains our view on the current list of SSP issues [1] except for those opened in the last week or so. (Sorry the formatting's a bit crappy.) Can you

[ietf-dkim] SSP Issues list

2007-12-10 Thread Stephen Farrell
Hi All, Eliot's updated the tracker [1] with all Dave's new issues. If anyone else has any SSP issues they'd like to raise, now would be a good time. I'll chat a bit with Barry and get back to the list with a plan for processing these, Regards, Stephen. [1]

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-05 Thread J.D. Falk
On 2007-06-02 20:35, Dave Crocker wrote: Eliot Lear wrote: What I am more concerned about is the amount of complexity in the system. Going through both TXT *and* SSP records seems like a recipe for synchronization problems and other nasties that we could best do without. And I could

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-05 Thread Steve Atkins
On Jun 5, 2007, at 8:27 AM, J.D. Falk wrote: On 2007-06-02 20:35, Dave Crocker wrote: Eliot Lear wrote: What I am more concerned about is the amount of complexity in the system. Going through both TXT *and* SSP records seems like a recipe for synchronization problems and other

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-05 Thread Michael Thomas
Jim Fenton wrote: Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Jim Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not clear on what only do TXT means in this context -- do you mean a directly referenced TXT record or one retrieved via an XPTR lookup or both? The policy record is only expressed

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-05 Thread Hector Santos
Steve Atkins wrote: I think that deploying a new RR isn't as trivial as has been claimed, but having TXT and something else just won't work well. Steve, I see your point and concern. If the WG is wanting a new RR, then my vote for a RR/TXT lookup order was just the most logical strategy,

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-04 Thread Damon
I don't see how I would end up in a situation where I attach a wildcard to a policy that says all mail is signed. Since NOMAIL is out of scope it is entirely acceptable to present the following options: 1) You can deploy DKIM policy for specific domain records using your existing DNS server.

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-04 Thread Jim Fenton
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: From: Jim Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not clear on what only do TXT means in this context -- do you mean a directly referenced TXT record or one retrieved via an XPTR lookup or both? The policy record is only expressed using TXT The

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-04 Thread Douglas Otis
On Jun 4, 2007, at 3:43 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: The policy record is only expressed using TXT. The discovery process being first look for TXT, if that is not find look for an XPTR and if found a TXT of the XPTR node. This is apparently the central issue

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Steve Atkins
On Jun 1, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Arvel Hathcock wrote: (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus. If a new RR can solve the wildcard issue and we feel that this is a

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Hector Santos
Steve Atkins wrote: On Jun 1, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Arvel Hathcock wrote: (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus. If a new RR can solve the wildcard issue and we

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Eliot Lear
Greetings Arvel, (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus. If a new RR can solve the wildcard issue and we feel that this is a significant issue worth solving (or

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Hector Santos
Eliot Lear wrote: Greetings Arvel, (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus. If a new RR can solve the wildcard issue and we feel that this is a significant issue

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Friday 01 June 2007 22:30, Arvel Hathcock wrote: (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus. If a new RR can solve the wildcard issue and we feel that this is

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Steve Atkins
On Jun 2, 2007, at 1:04 AM, Hector Santos wrote: Steve Atkins wrote: On Jun 1, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Arvel Hathcock wrote: (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus.

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote: So if the spec states SSP clients must query for new RR first, then TXT you wouldn't expect most receivers to comply with that? Eventually, if the new RR type gets some deployment. Scott K ___ NOTE

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Douglas Otis
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote: So if the spec states SSP clients must query for new RR first, then TXT you wouldn't expect most receivers to comply with that? Eventually, if the new RR type gets some

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Steve Atkins
On Jun 2, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote: So if the spec states SSP clients must query for new RR first, then TXT you wouldn't expect most receivers to comply with that? Eventually, if the new RR type gets some deployment. The

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:54, Douglas Otis wrote: On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote: So if the spec states SSP clients must query for new RR first, then TXT you wouldn't expect most receivers to comply with that?

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Saturday 02 June 2007 13:02, Steve Atkins wrote: On Jun 2, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote: So if the spec states SSP clients must query for new RR first, then TXT you wouldn't expect most receivers to comply with that?

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Steve Atkins
On Jun 2, 2007, at 10:31 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Saturday 02 June 2007 13:02, Steve Atkins wrote: On Jun 2, 2007, at 9:40 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Saturday 02 June 2007 12:27, Steve Atkins wrote: So if the spec states SSP clients must query for new RR first, then TXT you

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Dave Crocker
Eliot Lear wrote: What I am more concerned about is the amount of complexity in the system. Going through both TXT *and* SSP records seems like a recipe for synchronization problems and other nasties that we could best do without. And I could easily be convinced by Peter Koch that

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Steve Atkins
On Jun 2, 2007, at 2:37 PM, John Levine wrote: As an aside, I don't believe there's anything that prevents use of TXT records, as currently specced, with wildcards, other than lack of support in the more widely used nameservers. It depends on what your plan for using TXT records is. If

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Douglas Otis
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 14:51 -0700, Steve Atkins wrote: On Jun 2, 2007, at 2:37 PM, John Levine wrote: We've gone around this enough times that I think that if there were a reasonable way to do wildcards with TXT records, we'd have stumbled across it by now. If you exclude fix the

RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Hallam-Baker, Phillip
From: Jim Fenton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Fenton (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no

RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Arvel Hathcock Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:30 PM To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you

RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-02 Thread Hallam-Baker, Phillip
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Eliot Lear Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 9:51 AM To: Hector Santos Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues Hi Hector, How will my Mr. Koch assure the world that new RR record queries will be reliable? that all new RR queries

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-01 Thread Stephen Farrell
Hi Jim, Barry and I would like us to do the following: Continue the discussion on the list for a few more days since not all the usual suspects have reacted yet (please do!) and the context is slightly different (with XPTR anyway) from the (many;-) other times we've discussed these topics in

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-01 Thread Jim Fenton
Works for me. Actually, due to vacation schedules, I need to accelerate that a bit and get the draft submitted by June 15. So, WG participants (especially the 'usual suspects'), let's hear from you. -Jim Stephen Farrell wrote: Hi Jim, Barry and I would like us to do the following:

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-01 Thread Arvel Hathcock
(2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus. If a new RR can solve the wildcard issue and we feel that this is a significant issue worth solving (or at least

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-06-01 Thread Hector Santos
Arvel Hathcock wrote: (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus. If a new RR can solve the wildcard issue and we feel that this is a significant issue worth solving

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-31 Thread Graham Murray
Douglas Otis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The concept is to provide a text file in some standardized format listing the domain to be avoided. An announcement might be made that a change occurred to prompt administrators to update their configurations based upon this list. I would not expect

RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-31 Thread Hallam-Baker, Phillip
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Fenton What we had hoped to do in the next revision of the allman-ssp draft was to unify it as much as possible with Phill Hallam-Baker's draft. I opened three new issues on April 16 that I think need to be resolved in order to do that. (1)

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-31 Thread Jim Fenton
william(at)elan.net wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2007, Jim Fenton wrote: (3) Upward query vs. wildcard publication. 27 messages in discussion from 15 people. Most of the discussion was a rehash of the idea of associating semantics with DNS zone-cuts, which we had already discussed and rejected.

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-31 Thread Jim Fenton
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Fenton (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus. I see no value in an SSP

RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-31 Thread Bill.Oxley
WG Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Fenton (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-31 Thread Jim Fenton
Fenton Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:26 AM To: Hallam-Baker, Phillip Cc: IETF DKIM WG Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Fenton (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion

RE: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-31 Thread Bill.Oxley
PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:35 PM To: Oxley, Bill (CCI-Atlanta) Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues The problem is that the default needs to be I do send mail, and I don't sign everything, since that is the current situation. In other words, the lack of an SSP

[ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread Jim Fenton
What we had hoped to do in the next revision of the allman-ssp draft was to unify it as much as possible with Phill Hallam-Baker's draft. I opened three new issues on April 16 that I think need to be resolved in order to do that. (1) Use of XPTR records for SSP. The idea here is to create a

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread Michael Thomas
Scott Kitterman wrote: On Wednesday 30 May 2007 18:22, Jim Fenton wrote: (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus. Agreed. There is also a view that if you go

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread william(at)elan.net
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Jim Fenton wrote: What we had hoped to do in the next revision of the allman-ssp draft was to unify it as much as possible with Phill Hallam-Baker's draft. I opened three new issues on April 16 that I think need to be resolved in order to do that. (1) Use of XPTR

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread Douglas Otis
On May 30, 2007, at 4:54 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote: (3) Upward query vs. wildcard publication. 27 messages in discussion from 15 people. Most of the discussion was a rehash of the idea of associating semantics with DNS zone-cuts, which we had already discussed and rejected. I

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:52:17 -0700 Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scott Kitterman wrote: On Wednesday 30 May 2007 18:22, Jim Fenton wrote: (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else.

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread william(at)elan.net
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Douglas Otis wrote: On May 30, 2007, at 4:54 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote: (3) Upward query vs. wildcard publication. 27 messages in discussion from 15 people. Most of the discussion was a rehash of the idea of associating semantics with DNS zone-cuts, which we had

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread Michael Thomas
Scott Kitterman wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:52:17 -0700 Michael Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a lot of sympathy for this point of view, but something also to consider here is that there is a relatively small, but motivated set up of people who would like to use SSP as early adopters.

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread Douglas Otis
On May 30, 2007, at 5:25 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2007, Douglas Otis wrote: I would be happy to help co-author a draft that establishes a list of current domains levels used by registries which should be excluded from queries for DKIM related records. That's not the

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread Hector Santos
Scott Kitterman wrote: On Wednesday 30 May 2007 18:22, Jim Fenton wrote: (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear consensus. Agreed. There is also a view that if you go

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread Steve Atkins
On May 30, 2007, at 6:16 PM, Hector Santos wrote: Scott Kitterman wrote: On Wednesday 30 May 2007 18:22, Jim Fenton wrote: (2) SSP record type (TXT vs. something new). Only 4 messages in discussion, mostly saying if you support TXT, don't bother with anything else. Again, no clear

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread John L
Super dumb question: Can we change the model around from a default does send to a default does not send? Just as you have an MX to indicate you do accept mail (modulo the historical A mess), perhaps you have an SSP to say you do send authenticated mail with the default being unauthenticated

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

2007-05-30 Thread John L
You're questioning the transition issues. I'm asking where do we want to end up. I'm suggesting that SSP should be designed for our end-goal. This is the Internet -- the transition will never be over, so something that only works after the transition won't happen. My strawman is that our