Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-12.txt> (DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Signatures) to Draft Standard

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 16 Jun 2011 04:47:20 -0000

In article <[email-masked]> 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

I've reviewed this document, indeed my fingerprints are all over it.

It's definitely an improvement to 4871: folds in the errata, takes out
a lot of gratuitous and often wrong non-normative advice, cleans up
the 2119 MUSTage, and otherwise improves the text.  Except for the one
obscure feature that is deprecated due to lack of use, I think that
any implementation that is compliant with 4871+errata should still be
compliant with this draft.

R's,
John

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 04:39:14 -0700

At 14:38 15-06-2011, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
>[email-masked] mailing lists by 2011-06-29. Exceptionally, comments may be

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?

In Appendix B.1.4, [email-masked] could be changed to 
[email-masked] (RFC 2606).

In Section C.1:

   "This differs from the usage in the original DKIM specification,
    where a null "g=" value is not valid for any address."

I suggest a minor change, "previous DKIM specification [RFC4871]", for clarity.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 21:56:29 -0400

> 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 disclosure 920, which applied to RFC
4871 only).  Yahoo! will update the disclosure again when 4871bis gets
its own RFC number.

Barry, DKIM working group chair