The DKIM Working Group requests the publication of
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10 as a BCP. Alternatively, this document
might be suitable for Pete's "Applicability Statement" experiment, at
the Proposed Standard level.
Please see the attached PROTO writeup.
Barry, DKIM working group chair
PROTO writeup for draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10
The DKIM Working Group requests the publication of
draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-10 as a BCP. Alternatively, this document might be
suitable for Pete's "Applicability Statement" experiment, at the Proposed
Standard level.
(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?
Barry Leiba is the document shepherd. I have reviewed this version, and am
satisfied that it's ready.
(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 adequate review, and I have no concerns about the level of
review.
(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?
I have 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.
I have no concerns. There is no IPR involved.
(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?
There is consensus of the working group, as a whole, behind it. A
minority of participants feel that the advice given in the last paragraph
of section 1 is all that makes sense, and that the rest of the document
isn't needed (see "Working Group Summary" later in this writeup). Those
participants are willing to accept this document, nonetheless, seeing
no harm in it.
(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)
No.
(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
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?
There are no ID nits, apart from a reference issue (see 1.h).
(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].
All references are properly separated and labelled.
There is a normative reference to RFC 5598, an informational document. This
document defines terms used in discussion of email architecture, and is widely
referenced in this manner.
(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration 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 [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?
There are no IANA issues with this document, and the IANA Considerations
section says that.
(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?
There is no formal language in this document.
(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) allows an administrative mail
domain (ADMD) to assume some responsibility for a message. Based on
deployment experience with DKIM, this Best Current Practices document
provides guidance for the use of DKIM with scenarios that include
Mailing List Managers (MLMs).
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
example, was there controversy about particular points or
were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
rough?
There is a significant sense that the only "right" thing to advise
with regard to mailing list managers is that messages forwarded by
the MLM be DKIM-signed, and that verifiers consider the MLM domain's
signature in making their assessments. This is captured in the
document. Notwithstanding that, there is consensus that further
advice, as given in the document, is appropriate and useful.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
This document does not define a protocol, but specifies practices
recommended for using DKIM in scenarios that include Mailing List
Managers. The document reflects the best practices at the current
time, in the judgment of the DKIM working group.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
