IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dcrup] draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage and document shepherds

Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com> Sun, 11 June 2017 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.com>
X-Original-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62934129AB0 for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nMiabi56DDZQ for <dcrup@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:18:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x233.google.com (mail-vk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B5ED129A9C for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id g66so41547264vki.1 for <dcrup@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=97INXmU7U4YnYkyloiU+SBx2ORewK+lzNFbnXKMG+jg=; b=V7etiMQx1m4JLMEmLt1EfQMapCJBcUUJWCLDFDWt136Qpr42yZRjyk2r5ZrqytyE4u FmvHsh6n8l7mgo/qo8Hv9xaLgEhDgECSkmj0EZWH5q7oimGEJqHx0MCxD3azmHraUOOF LiGtK/okxELn8wpO1zA+FSZmaFo1a9shhk7rU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=97INXmU7U4YnYkyloiU+SBx2ORewK+lzNFbnXKMG+jg=; b=uJNFtDRAE9zkiZV8EmVPZ4EVp4lr9Xo9bz99s2Dy1gNLsKTW4/SQZ5/8IdWtVoNKTn lGEMhBsVRSwS4fXrpp0OcFSPpn+BQuD/4OWf2o1dfaS1HKg87uvIYQR8AXMfEiw6OA6f IzDXlEDxCuCojpjL4bFOF2RDtTkInI61PZ00M4eruEd9pW3CjE5i8do26k0CNG4c8H0U ynIko96XEFtmHa25bW7aFwfcBxgYBIZhTxb1NJCFiCBS58t3Jn1DrGEAye5UTD5zhZYg qsf/K8EgxNpllNnnpsUHqS3ItyLvTzlrPU406Mc8quAJYwiG4oUbJXOROAtekryDpdCj 2NxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcD01xvi3sFc5XS9BONszU/1zKckeb+ZdOdgX6IJcUjMa98/FRKX heiFg541iOhhpNBLY7kBw8NJGx7eARoWOtg=
X-Received: by 10.31.72.2 with SMTP id v2mr25830023vka.72.1497205076097; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.75.153 with HTTP; Sun, 11 Jun 2017 11:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CBFF8363-08F6-419E-AB24-D26137627C76@kitterman.com>
References: <20170610002538.10992.qmail@ary.lan> <CBFF8363-08F6-419E-AB24-D26137627C76@kitterman.com>
From: Kurt Andersen <kurta@drkurt.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 19:17:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CABuGu1o21f-4r4RzSdCLQAJG3ySDajc=BMFsVC9t_CNEz4ut+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Cc: dcrup@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114dae3eb794480551b33859"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dcrup/lnrkeaf3xYemIxbhNCdmF-g0l3I>
Subject: Re: [Dcrup] draft-ietf-dcrup-dkim-usage and document shepherds
X-BeenThere: dcrup@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DKIM Crypto Update <dcrup.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dcrup/>
List-Post: <mailto:dcrup@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dcrup>, <mailto:dcrup-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 18:18:07 -0000

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 3:14 AM, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On June 9, 2017 8:25:38 PM EDT, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
> . . .it seems kind of premature to me.
>
> Why would that matter?  This draft just gets rid of the obsolete cruft.
> It clears the deck for adding a new algorithm, but in no way requires we
> have that sorted out.
>

While RFCs do have a cost, can the ADs weigh in on the relative benefits of
doing this "sweep the decks clean" first update to be followed by "add more
algorithms" vs. bundling it all together?

I too think that it might be a bit premature to make a last call though I'm
in support of the two-pass approach.

--Kurt

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status