Hector, > 1) The stated goals and milestones in the current draft charter are: > > GOALS AND MILESTONES: > > 02/06 WG last call on DKIM threats and security requirements > 05/06 WG last call on DKIM signature specification > 09/06 WG last call on DKIM policy specification > 12/06 WG last call on DKIM DNS Resource Record > 12/06 WG last call on overview document > > Is there suppose to be a milestone date for the first deliverable > described > in the draft charter?
That's the "overview document", and is the last out of the door according to the current charter, and so 12/06 is the date. We could clarify that by moving the text about I guess. Probably worth doing if it wasn't clear to someone following the list. > * an informational RFC providing an overview of DKIM, how it can fit > into overall messaging systems and outlining potential DKIM applictions > and future extensions > > 2) Minor: typos > > Note typo "applications" in first deliverable statement. > > Note type "incuding" in the out of scope itemized line: Thanks. > > * Duplication of prior work in signed email, incuding S/MIME and OpenPGP. > > 3) Mixed Technology Integrated Issues. > > As an implementator, we will be faced with integrated design issues such > as > current 2821 email security RFC track technology, including 2821 RFC > standard methods (SIEVE) and non-RFC but very popular concepts such as > SPAM-ASSASSIN. > > I am not sure if this is implied in the charter, should be highlighted as > out of scope, or part of the first deliverable: Overview of DKIM. > > I have never been to an IETF function such as a BOF, but if I were to > attend > and in the audience, there is no doubt in my mind I would raise the > questions with the panel: > > "Can DKIM can be used as standalone?" > "Is DKIM designed to replaced current technology XYZ?" > "Can DKIM coexist with XYZ and how?" > > I imagine these could be considered out of scope for the charter, but at > the > same time, as part of the stated first deliverable, "how it can fit into > overall messaging systems," it might be difficult to avoid discussion of > integrated and mixed technology policy result issues. > > While I do understand much of this will depend on the point of view > perspective of authors, network and system administrators, providers and > developers, I believe this is important because ultimately, we will be > faced > with this issue and customers will ask the same sort of question. I think > the WG should help with the guideline and insights. I think those are excellent things to include a paragraph or two (or whatever's warranted) in the overview document. (And making sure that disagreement over that kind of text doesn't become a barrier to progress is one reason why the overview should be the last out.) > 4) Migration planning and accelerating Adoption. > > I think this would be part of the overview. Possibly a small change to > the > first deliverable statement: > > * an informational RFC providing an overview of DKIM, how it can fit > into overall messaging systems, migration considerations, and outlining > potential DKIM applications and future extensions I wouldn't object, though I'd have thought it was implicit. Cheers, Stephen. _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
