Subject: [ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis posted

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:33:23 -0700

A new version of draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis has been posted.  This document is in WGLC, closing 4/30; this new version contains those changes that are shown in the WG's issue tracker for which there appears to be consensus or are otherwise uncontested, and I've closed them in the tracker.  You can use the datatracker link (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis/; click on the History tab) to get a view of the diffs to make sure we have them right.  Things that have been edited or added as a result of tracker items are marked with "{DKIM #}" tags.  Text that has been removed has, well, been removed.

Any changes that have had some contention are not yet included and instead will remain open through the end of WGLC.

I'll be doing the same for the MLM BCP later today.

-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Hector Santos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:25:10 -0400

Quick question and comment:

I see the major change is the TOC (table of content) outline and all 
the document's TOC references.   "Chapter 1" is a "editor" note, (very 
odd). Is that what we really want for a CHAPTER 1? Especially when it 
indicates the idea of removal thus once again changing the TOC outline 
and all references again in the final publication?

In regards to issue #1 (section 2.3 or 3.3 for rev 07 now). No one 
directly indicate a +/- 1.  You actually agreed "authorized signer" is 
an identity. Barry and Dave incorrectly suggested the author (AUID) 
has no association with the signature or SDID when in fact the author 
(FROM: header) is the only single fundamental requirement for binding 
headers.  Its an inherent association with both authorized and 
unauthorized semantics. In fact, Dave referenced an informational RFC 
to reason the unauthorized semantic, but neglected to note (which I 
followed up on) the two sections with greater details devoted to 
authorized signer semantics, in particular to WG chartered security 
and functional requirements RFC productions. With no other WG input, 
this is hardly a show for rough consensus?  It just seems "WG 
procedural rules" are followed or not depending what suits the agenda.

-- 
HLS

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 25 Apr 2011 04:28:52 -0000

Nits:

In 4.5: for consistency, please use the same a-label language for d=
and i= tags.  The same language needs to go in s= since selectors are
domain names, too.  Suggested language all three places:

  Internationalized domain names MUST be encoded as A-Labels, as
  described in Section 2.3 of [RFC5890].

Other than that, it looks great.

R's,
John

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:39:24 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Levine [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 9:29 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis posted
> 
> Nits:
> 

Done, and thanks.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 21:41:45 -0700

> From: Hector Santos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 2:25 PM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: [email-masked]

It is not at all uncommon to do this sort of thing in pre-publication RFCs.

> an identity.

One can certainly register disagreement with a proposed change without using the specific characters "-1".  More than one person did that.