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
