Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue #1399: clarify i= vs. SSP

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:13:45 +0000

All,

At the meeting last week we said we wanted to try get issue
1399 [1] resolved before Jim sends out a version of SSP to
start WGLC.

So, if we can try focus on this for a day or two that'd be
good. If necessary we can do a straw poll towards the end
of the week to get Jim some input for the next rev of the doc.
(Since the time is short, I reckon its ok for folks to
revisit this week's outcome for this issue during WGLC if
we don't get a fairly clear consensus.)

Text from the tracker:

   "One of the things I noticed from recent discussions is that we need
    to have clarity in SSP on what, exactly, qualifies as a valid
    signature for "I sign everything". This guidance is not in dkim-base
    (purposefully), but I believe that we had intended i= to provide
    that clarity. In any case, we do need to provide the exact semantics
    in SSP of how a receiver determines whether a DKIM signature
    satisfies the SSP criteria or not.

    I'm not sure whether this rises to a -ssp-req item or not -- I
    sort of lean toward it just to make certain that it is tracked. Or
    if there's a bunch of disagreement about what satisfies the SSP
    criteria, then it most likely should be..."

Regards,
S.

PS: Please try to keep on topic in this thread at least. We can
(and I'm sure will) revisit all the usual SSP talking points during
WGLC.

[1] https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1399
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:46:55 -0800

Stephen,

> 1399 [1] resolved before Jim sends out a version of SSP to

You are implying that you still think the document is quite close to working 
group last call.  Is this correct?

Last Call is issued when there appears to be a stable consensus that the 
document is finished.

Is the intent, then, to ignore that fundamental issues that have been raised 
about its current form?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:46:06 +0000

Dave,

Now that you've raised a bunch of issues, (thanks for that) we'll
see whether or not we get an overall rough consensus as those are
considered.

I've an open mind on how that might go, but we're not starting
from scratch here - we do have rfc 5016 and a couple of years
background, so achieving that consensus is quite possible.

Stephen.

Dave Crocker wrote:
> You are implying that you still think the document is quite close to
> working group last call.  Is this correct?
> 
> Is the intent, then, to ignore that fundamental issues that have been
> raised about its current form?
> 
> d/

---

From: Scott Kitterman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:35:11 -0500

>see whether or not we get an overall rough consensus as those are

Please just mark me down for -1 on all of them.  I don't think there's 
anything new in any of them.  Rather than ad nauseum rehash of old issues, 
let's just figure out if we're going to do SSP roughly as designed in the 
IETF or not.

Personally, I've nether the time nor the energy to go through all this 
again.  This, in my opinion, the purpose of all this rehash.  Unlike some 
here I'm not a professional standards body jockey.  I have customers to 
serve and code to write.

All this last minute 'problem discovery' comes as no suprise to me.  It's 
one of the end games I had in mind when I objected to deferring SSP.

>background, so achieving that consensus is quite possible.

Good luck on that.

Scott K

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 14:48:27 -0800

Stephen,

I asked a fairly simple question about your pressing for a Last Call.

As nearly as I can tell from your response, citing the requirements document 
and extensive background, you are in fact taking the view that there is 
sufficient working group consensus to assert that the document is ready for 
Last Call.

While, no, your note indicates that the issues being raised will not be 
"ignored" their import appears to be rather minimal to you, no matter that 
some go to fundamental points.

Please clarify.

d/

ps.  As many histories, such as IPv6, show, the mere passage of years says 
nothing about the maturity of a specification.

-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:13:06 +0000

Dave Crocker wrote:
> As nearly as I can tell from your response, citing the requirements
> document and extensive background, you are in fact taking the view that
> there is sufficient working group consensus to assert that the document
> is ready for Last Call.
> 
> "ignored" their import appears to be rather minimal to you, no matter
> that some go to fundamental points.
> 
> Please clarify.

Sure.

My reply is on the record and is clear, i.e. I've an open mind.
In this case that means I think you may succeed in your apparent
desire to convince a bunch of folks against (aspects of) the
current SSP draft, or then again, perhaps they'll like it
nonetheless. We'll see. As it happens, I sympathise with some,
but not all, of the issues you raise.

Aside from that, I tend not to aim to be argumentative & wish
more folks on this list had similar discipline. My thanks go
to those with a similar approach. (And yes, that is an indirect
rebuke specifically aimed at aspects of your otherwise overall
excellent contribution to DKIM, i.e a mixed message;-)

Regards,
Stephen.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:08:42 -0800

Stephen,

For a working group chair to post text like this that (only) targets a single 
participant is unfortunate, first, given how freely ad hominems have been 
flowing, yet you fail to focus on them too, and second because you offer a 
generic rebuke without any supporting basis.

 From a process management standpoint, your posting therefore appears to be 
seeking to undermine my participation.

In what model of credible IETF working group management is that sort of 
behavior by a chair acceptable.

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 16:22:42 +0000

Dave Crocker wrote:
> For a working group chair to post text like this that (only) targets a
> single participant is unfortunate, first, given how freely ad hominems
> have been flowing, yet you fail to focus on them too, 

Fair enough. I didn't directly do that (until just now), except
in reaction to a mail directed to me from you that I consider was
needlessly argumentative.

> and second because
> you offer a generic rebuke without any supporting basis.

I think this thread is a supporting basis. I'm sure you
don't. We disagree.

> From a process management standpoint, your posting therefore appears to
> be seeking to undermine my participation

That's not the case.

> behavior by a chair acceptable.

Rhetorical question skipped.

Stephen.

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:38:14 -0800

> needlessly argumentative.

Perhaps you didn't notice that you are repeating the assertion but not 
providing its basis.  Since I've been trying to be careful to make my postings 
have substance, I do not know what you are taking exception to.  That makes 
your repeated labeling of my efforts particularly problematic.

> I think this thread is a supporting basis. I'm sure you

Stephen, where we disagree is with a working group chair behaving in this 
manner at all, without feeling obliged to be both careful and specific.

>> be seeking to undermine my participation

Yes it is.

(Gosh, that was a productive exchange.  See how helpful it is to provide no 
actual content to an assertion?)

> Rhetorical question skipped.

Interesting that you take a very real and serious process question and dismiss 
it so casually.  Given the tenor the the group's history, it's not surprising, 
though.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker