On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 10:47:01 +0100 Stephen Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Let's try get back to Jim's issues. What we need to do is help >get ssp-00 out so that we have an I-D as a basis for discussion. > >What I'd like to do is get a sense of what we'd like to see >in draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-00, in terms of the options that Jim >(as editor) has chosen. (So please don't start with your >favourite alternative approach, at least not in this thread.) > >At this stage its perfectly fine to want to see how something >pans out, and ask for it to be included now, but later ask for it >to be changed/removed - this isn't WGLC, we're just helping the >authors decide what to include in the -00 version. > >I think that Jim is planning to edit -00 in the coming days >so if you say nothing, he'll just pick what he wants to include. >If you say too much, he'll also just pick what he wants to >include. If its inconclusive, he'll also just pick what he >wants to include. > >To that end, please respond, by Monday, to this with +1/-1's as >described below (the description of the issues is from Jim's >original mail [1]): > >(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. > > Issue#1: +1 - include use of XPTR as part of ssp-00 > Issue#1: -1 - exclude use of XPTR from ssp-00
+1 >(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. > > Issue#2: +1 - Define how to use a TXT RR for SSP policies (with or > without something else) > Issue#2: -1 - Don't use TXT at all, only use new RRs for SSP +1 >(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. > > Issue#3: +1 - Define an upward query based approach to finding SSP > statements > Issue#3: -1 - Define a wildcard based approach to finding SSP > statemetns -1 >Stephen. > >[1] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q2/007537.html > Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
