Hi All, Sorry about the delay with this, Barry and I had problems syncing up over the holiday and have only now gotten this done.
The attached contains our view on the current list of SSP issues [1] except for those opened in the last week or so. (Sorry the formatting's a bit crappy.) Can you check that these seem ok, or comment where they don't? Please comment in the original thread so we can more easily track things. The editors of the I-D have a new revision almost ready to post, so what we'd suggest is that we let them watch the list traffic over the next week or so, then have them post an I-D reflecting where we are with these issues, and then we can schedule doing the jabber/concall thing to progress if necesary. Regards, Stephen. [1] https://rt.psg.com/Search/Results.html?Order=ASC&Query=Queue%20%3D%20'dkim'%20AND%20(Status%20%3D%20'open'%20OR%20Status%20%3D%20'new')&Rows=50&OrderBy=id&Format=
1382 (SSP) New resource record type new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 years ago 1 years ago 0 Proposal: ACCEPT(CLOSE), we seem to have WG consensus to use TXT only, and that's in the current I-D 1399 clarify i= vs. SSP open dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 years ago 1 years ago 0 Proposal: OPEN, Maybe merge this with a newer one? Probably 1519 1402 Applicability of SSP to subdomains open dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1 years ago 6 days ago 0 Proposal: CLOSE, process this in the more recent issue #1534 1512 ssp should not link "all" and third parties new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 weeks ago 6 weeks ago 0 Proposal: OPEN, we seemed to reach consensus in this thread [1] but I'm not clear what the resulting change to the spec should be. presumably we can close this with the next rev [1] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008275.html 1513 the new handling tag new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6 weeks ago 6 weeks ago 0 Proposal: OPEN, needs more discussion 1519 SSP-01 Unnecessary constraint on i= when asserting "strict" open dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 13 days ago 13 days ago 0 Proposal: OPEN, needs more discussion, Doug proposed some changes that Jim didn't like in this thread [2] [2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008248.html 1520 limiting SSP to statements that inform recipient about (potential) signer actions new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 8 days ago 0 Proposal: OPEN, we seem to have about 3 for this and about 6 against, but more opinions are needed, thread is [3] [3] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008423.html 1521 Limit the application of SSP to unsigned messages new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: REJECT, but some wording changes may be needed for the next rev, thread is [4] I mainly saw opposition to the change suggested in the issue, and little support, but some text clarifying changes were suggested (e.g. [5]). [4] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008424.html [5] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008467.html 1522 Discussion of query traffic overhead new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: ACCEPT(CHECK), thread is [6], 2 opinions that there's no problem, but some concern that the text in the draft is incomplete wrt DNS lookups; should hopefully be closed with next rev, check again then [6] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008425.html 1523 Service Model summary new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: OPEN, thread is [7], no real discussion but hopefully clarified by next rev, check again then [7] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008426.html 1524 Signature semantics new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: OPEN, thread is [8], lots of discussion, no clear consensus, one possible actionable change [9] [8] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008427.html [9] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008603.html 1525 Restriction to posting by first Author breaks email semantics new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: REJECT, thread is [10], mailing list discussion has not unearthed support for a change. [10] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008428.html [11] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5016#section-5.3 1526 SSP applies only to receive-side filtering engine and not end-users new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: ACCEPT(CHECK), thread is [12] there seemed to be consensus to make such changes, but no specific changes have been proposed, so we'll have to check the next rev [12] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008429.html 1527 SSP threats analysis needed new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: ACCEPT(CHECK), threads [13,14,15] general agreement that this is good, but no concrete text proposals for the I-D, nor has anyone stepped up to do concerted additional work on this, nor have any specific new threats been discussed on the list, so we suggest letting the editors work on the security considerations section in the next I-D, and then people can raise any specific threats they see as not being covered in that rev (please send suggested text to the editors if you've got any) [13] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008430.html [14] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008701.html [15] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008512.html 1528 false negatives and false positives new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: OPEN, thread is [16] little discussion, might be a subset of issue 1527 [16] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008431.html 1529 Change "originator" to "author" new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: ACCEPT(CHECK), thread is [17] we seem to have consensus on this one [17] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008432.html 1530 replace use of term "suspicious" new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: ACCEPT(CHECK), thread is [18] we seem to have conesnsus for a change, suggest letting the editors pick something and then go with that or raise a new issue [18] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008433.html 1531 "does not exist" new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: ACCEPT(CHECK), thread is [19], seems to call for some clarifying text and/or a better definition, suggest letting editor work that and check next rev [19] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008434.html 1532 revise list labeling new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: ACCEPT(CHECK), thread is [20], editor says he'll work it for next rev [20] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008435.html 1533 strict vs. integrated new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: OPEN, thread is [21] little discussion & no clear conclusion to act on so far [21] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008435.html 1534 Applying SSP to sub-domains does not work new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: OPEN, thread is [22] needs more discussion as to whether current I-D represents consensus or not (Note: this replaces issue 1402) [22] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008437.html 1535 Simplify SSP decision tree new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: ACCEPT(CHECK), thread is [23], some discussion but mostly about issue 1540 on t=testing, suggest letting editor make that and other changes and then see if this can be closed or if there's still an opinion that the state machine is over complex [23] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008670.html 1536 definition of action terms new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9 days ago 9 days ago 0 Proposal: ACCEPT(CHECK), thread is [24], little discussion but the terms aren't currently defined, so suggest letting editors add definitions and checking those in next rev (and do provide editors with input please) [24] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008439.html 1537 Reputation is out of scope or define it new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8 days ago 8 days ago 0 Proposal: REJECT, thread is [25] Eliot's response [26] seems to indicate that the I-D already satisfies the request in the isseu [25] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008472.html [26] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008660.html 1538 review and repair of normative vocabulary usage new dkim Nobody 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8 days ago 8 days ago Proposal: ACCEPT(CHECK), thread is [27], no discussion, let's do that review on the next I-D [27] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008491.html 1540 deprecate t=testing Proposal: ACCEPT(CHECK), thread is [28] seems to have consensus [28] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008594.html XXX1 remove [FWS] Proposal: OPEN, no discussion, thread is [29] [29] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2007q4/008477.html
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
