One final note from me, as I want to state my current position regarding
4871bis, with respect to Last Call.
As the receiving verifier has all the information to _reliably_ [0]
determine which combination(s) [1] of From [2] and DKIM-Signature
verifies correctly, it has the means to provide
At 14:38 15-06-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Keys Identified Mail WG
(dkim) to consider the following document:
- 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures'
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-12.txt as a Draft Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in
This document obsoletes RFC 4871 for which there is an IPR disclosure (
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1547/ ). As this is a move from Proposed to
Draft, is a new IPR disclosure required?
The disclosure you cite *is* the new one, which applies to the 4871bis
draft (disclosure 1547 updates
One final response from me to this, because it is relevant to the IETF
last call:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Douglas Otis do...@mail-abuse.org wrote:
Complaints from John, Dave, and Barry and others is likely and
understandably out of fatigue. They just want the process to be over.
No.
On 6/23/11 8:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
In article4e02ee24.2060...@gmail.com you write:
On 6/22/11 11:14 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
The bottom line about Doug's note is that the working group extensively
considered the basic issue of multiple From: header fields and Doug is
raising
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Douglas Otis do...@mail-abuse.org wrote:
On 6/23/11 8:24 AM, John Levine wrote:
In article4e02ee24.2060...@gmail.com you write:
On 6/22/11 11:14 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
The bottom line about Doug's note is that the working group extensively
On 6/24/2011 10:33 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Complaints from John, Dave, and Barry and others is likely and understandably
out of fatigue. They just want the process to be over. We are now hearing there
is a vital protocol layering principle at stake which even precludes DKIM from
making these
On 6/22/11 11:14 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
The bottom line about Doug's note is that the working group extensively
considered the basic issue of multiple From: header fields and Doug is
raising nothing new about the topic.
A quick summary of the technical point at the core of Doug's
In article 4e02ee24.2060...@gmail.com you write:
On 6/22/11 11:14 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Folks,
The bottom line about Doug's note is that the working group extensively
considered the basic issue of multiple From: header fields and Doug is
raising nothing new about the topic.
Dave is quite
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Douglas Otis
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:51 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org; Barry Leiba; iesg-secret...@ietf.org; Sean Turner
Subject: Last Call: draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-12.txt (DomainKeys
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 01:17:16 pm Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Douglas Otis Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:51 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org; Barry Leiba; iesg-secret...@ietf.org; Sean Turner
Folks,
The bottom line about Doug's note is that the working group extensively
considered the basic issue of multiple From: header fields and Doug is raising
nothing new about the topic.
A quick summary of the technical point at the core of Doug's concern is that the
presence of multiple
To add chair support to Murray's comment:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 13:17, Murray S. Kucherawy m...@cloudmark.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Douglas Otis
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:51 PM
To: ietf@ietf.org;
In article 20110615213858.9853.22165.idtrac...@ietfa.amsl.com you write:
The IESG has received a request from the Domain Keys Identified Mail WG
(dkim) to consider the following document:
- 'DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures'
draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-12.txt as a Draft Standard
14 matches
Mail list logo