DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Development, Deployment, and Operations
draft-ietf-dkim-deployment-11

[Ballot comment]
(a) the last sentence before Figure 2 (section 2.5) seems to be missing a closing thought
(and closing punctuation):

"... but also contacting the signing organization and seeking"

seeking what?

[Ballot discuss]
[This is a revised discuss, reflecting the open issues that I believe merit a brief discussion in
the document.]

Charlie Kaufman noted a number of open issues in his secdir review; the authors' response was
generally "we don't have those answers yet so we need to be silent".  I agree that these issues
need not be resolved before publication, but I do think this document would be improved by
identifying some of these open issues, and that there could be harm in not communicating
these issues to readers.

The specific issues that iMHO merit a note are
(1) the selection of header fields to be signed;
(2) key rollover times; and
(3) the number of bytes covered by l=.

Again, I am not insisting we solve these issues.  I believe that these are significant deployment
decisions and readers will expect a document that "provides implementation, deployment,
operational and migration considerations for DKIM" to address these issues.  Stating that these
issues are not addressed (and perhaps why) is the least we can do.

[Ballot comment]
the last sentence before Figure 2 (section 2.5) seems to be missing a closing thought
(and closing punctuation):

"... but also contacting the signing organization and seeking"

seeking what?

[Ballot discuss]
[Moved from discuss-discuss to a "real" discuss based on the call...]

Charlie Kaufman noted a number of open issues in his secdir review; the authors' response was
generally "we don't have those answers yet so we need to be silent".  I agree that these issues
need not be resolved before publication, but I do think this document would be improved by
listing these open issues.  I believe there could be harm in not communicating some of these
open issues to readers.

[Ballot comment]
the last sentence before Figure 2 (section 2.5) seems to be missing a closing thought
(and closing punctuation):

"... but also contacting the signing organization and seeking"

seeking what?

[Ballot discuss]
This is a discuss-discuss

Charlie Kaufman noted a number of open issues in his secdir review; Dave C's response was
generally "we don't have those answers yet so we need to be silent"

Do other ADs think this document would be improved by listing these open issues?  Do others
think that rises to the level of a discuss?

[Ballot comment]
the last sentence before Figure 2 (section 2.5) seems to be missing a closing thought
(and closing punctuation):

"... but also contacting the signing organization and seeking"

seeking what?

Last call summary for draft-ietf-dkim-deployment

The IETF Last Call for dkim-deployment ended on Monday.  According
to my notes, we got the following comments:

http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q4/012914.html
http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2009q4/012916.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg59701.html
http://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-dkim-deployment/comment/105984/

The first three probably need some changes in the document.

Authors, could you take the lead in proposing appropriate
text to address the comments?

Best regards,
Pasi

The DKIM Working Group requests the publication of
draft-ietf-dkim-deployment-09 as an Informational RFC.

  (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.

  (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.

  (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?

Yes (checked by review and with IDnits version 2.11.15).

  (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 informative, and are labelled as such.

  (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.

This document provides implementation, deployment, operational and
migration considerations for DKIM.

    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?

Nothing to note.

    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 gives guidance on implementation based on experience of
participants and vendors who have already implemented the DKIM
protocols.  The document has been well reviewed by participants with
implementation/deployment experience.