Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

[Jim Fenton <[e-mail]>]

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:
>
> 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 the past.
>
> Then, (say the week after next?) you get the co-authors of
> draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-00 together and just pick your current
> best answer for each relevant issue and submit the -00
> around June 24. If you think some concalls/jabbering or
> whatever will help there, just let Barry & I know.
>
> Then, we'll look for offers of concrete alternative text
> to be sent to the list before Chicago.
>
> In Chicago we discuss. With one another and with the
> DNS folks.
>
> And then (back on the list) we resolve each of these well-worn
> issues once and for all (using strawpolls or whatever's
> necessary) over the following weeks and aim for a draft on
> which we can have WGLC in September. (With the reality being
> that it'll be October before we're ready.)
>
> Regards
> Stephen & Barry.
>
>
> 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 records for SSP.  The idea here is to create a more
>> general policy mechanism that can be used by WS-* and such.  There
>> were about 20 messages discussing this from 5 people.  I'm not
>> reading a clear consensus on this.
>>
>> (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.
>>
>> (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 have also been trying to get an opinion
>> from DNSOP on the idea of a one-level upward search (which I think
>> solves 90% of the problem), but haven't gotten any response.
>>
>> So I don't know what to write in a revision of the draft.  I could
>> just write my opinions, but that's basically what's in the
>> draft-allman-dkim-ssp-02 draft already and doesn't make any progress
>> toward unifying the different proposals.  I want to get something
>> done soon, well before the July 2 deadline.
>>
>> -Jim
>> _______________________________________________
>> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
>> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>>
>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html