Hi Pasi, The DKIM WG has finished WGLC on the ADSP draft [1] so this is a formal note requesting publication. The proto write up details are attached,
Thanks, Stephen. [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-06
Technical Summary DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) defines a domain-level authentication framework for email to permit verification of the source and contents of messages. This document specifies an adjunct mechanism to aid in assessing messages that do not contain a DKIM signature for the domain used in the author's address. It defines a record that can advertise whether a domain signs its outgoing mail, and how other hosts can access that record. Working Group Summary draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-06 is the 7th official WG draft, following on from 3 iterations of an individual submission (draft-allman-dkim-ssp) with the -00 version dating back to January 2006. The current draft has passed WGLC with solid support in the DKIM WG. Some minor editorial changes were make post-WGLC based on (a few) comments received on the -05 draft. The DKIM WG used the rt.psg.com tracker for its work (queue=dkim) and processed O(50) issues for this document over the period. Document Quality The document has undergone thorough review in the WG resulting in various revisions, typically removing features or renaming elements of the protocol, however, the basic core feature of ADSP has remained stable all through the process. Personnel Stephen Farrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is the shepherd for this document. PROTO write-up: (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? I have reviewed this vesion and believe it is ready for publication. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document has undergone very thorough review in the WG. Some members of the DNS directorate have also been involved in discussions at various stages of its development. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization, or XML? No concerns. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. No concerns. I know of no IPR issues with this document. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The WG has a strong concensus that this document should proceed. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first page, please indicate the intended status here. The nits tool generates one warning only ("Authors' Adresses" section title). (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. References are split, there are no downrefs. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation? Looks fine to me. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? Yes. There's one small bit of ABNF which is correct.
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
