Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP issues

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

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