Skip to main content

DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Author Domain Signing Practices (ADSP)
RFC 5617

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
10 (System) Notify list changed from dkim-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dkim-ssp@ietf.org to (None)
2013-11-25
10 Cindy Morgan New status of Historic approved by the IESG
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/status-change-adsp-rfc5617-to-historic/
2012-08-22
10 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Magnus Westerlund
2009-08-12
10 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue by Cindy Morgan
2009-08-12
10 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'RFC 5617' added by Cindy Morgan
2009-08-12
10 (System) RFC published
2009-07-06
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor
2009-07-06
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress
2009-07-06
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors
2009-07-02
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress
2009-06-24
10 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2009-06-24
10 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2009-06-24
10 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2009-06-24
10 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2009-06-24
10 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2009-06-24
10 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] Position for Magnus Westerlund has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Magnus Westerlund
2009-06-05
10 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-06-04
2009-06-04
10 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2009-06-04
10 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2009-06-03
10 Ross Callon [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ross Callon
2009-06-03
10 Cullen Jennings [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Cullen Jennings
2009-06-03
10 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2009-06-03
10 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2009-06-03
10 Lisa Dusseault [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lisa Dusseault
2009-06-03
10 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2009-06-03
10 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ron Bonica
2009-06-03
10 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2009-06-02
10 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
In the Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia on 2009-05-29, an editorial
  suggestion is made regarding text that changed in the last revision: …
[Ballot comment]
In the Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia on 2009-05-29, an editorial
  suggestion is made regarding text that changed in the last revision:

  At the end of Section 4.1, there is now a "Note" (the last one) that
  includes normative text. I don't know why this last paragraph is now
  a Note, but I believe notes should be informative in nature and should
  not contain normative text. The recommendation here is to remove the
  word "Note" from the last paragraph.
2009-06-02
10 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2009-06-02
10 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2009-06-01
10 Magnus Westerlund
[Ballot discuss]
Section 4.2.1:

ABNF:
            adsp-dkim-tag = %x64.6b.69.6d *WSP "=" *WSP
                …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 4.2.1:

ABNF:
            adsp-dkim-tag = %x64.6b.69.6d *WSP "=" *WSP
                            ("unknown" / "all" / "discardable")

Neither this syntax or Section 5.2  (IANA consideration) specifies what the allowed syntax are for any future extensions. The only applicable limitation is the syntax of the value list. But that do allow a wide range of character and spaces inside the value. Maybe this should be limited to be only a token?

Please clarify what is allowed for ease of handling any extensions in the future.
2009-06-01
10 Magnus Westerlund [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Magnus Westerlund
2009-05-31
10 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2009-05-30
10 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2009-05-28
10 Pasi Eronen State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Pasi Eronen
2009-05-28
10 Pasi Eronen Placed on agenda for telechat - 2009-06-04 by Pasi Eronen
2009-05-28
10 Pasi Eronen [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Pasi Eronen
2009-05-28
10 Pasi Eronen Ballot has been issued by Pasi Eronen
2009-05-28
10 Pasi Eronen Created "Approve" ballot
2009-05-11
10 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-10.txt
2009-02-05
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2009-02-05
09 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-09.txt
2009-01-15
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Eric Rescorla.
2009-01-09
10 Pasi Eronen Removed from agenda for telechat - 2009-01-15 by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-30
10 Pasi Eronen State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-30
10 Pasi Eronen Telechat date was changed to 2009-01-15 from 2009-01-08 by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-17
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2008-12-17
08 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-08.txt
2008-12-17
10 Pasi Eronen State Changes to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-11
10 Pasi Eronen Telechat date was changed to 2009-01-08 from 2008-12-18 by Pasi Eronen
2008-12-09
10 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2008-12-05
10 Amanda Baber
IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1 (Section 5.1):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the
"Specification Tags" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration Procedures: …
IANA Last Call comments:

Action 1 (Section 5.1):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the
"Specification Tags" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration Procedures: IETF Review
Initial contents of this registry will be:

TYPE | REFERENCE
+------+-------------------+
dkim | [RFC-dkim-ssp-07]


Action 2 (Section 5.2):

Upon approval of this document, the IANA will create the
"Outbound Signing Practices" registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/TBD

Registration Procedures: IETF Review
Initial contents of this registry will be:

TYPE | REFERENCE
+-------------+------------------+
unknown | [RFC-dkim-ssp-07]
all | [RFC-dkim-ssp-07]
discardable | [RFC-dkim-ssp-07]


We understand the above to be the only IANA Actions for this document.
2008-11-28
10 Pasi Eronen Placed on agenda for telechat - 2008-12-18 by Pasi Eronen
2008-11-25
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla
2008-11-25
10 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Eric Rescorla
2008-11-25
10 Cindy Morgan Last call sent
2008-11-25
10 Cindy Morgan State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Cindy Morgan
2008-11-24
10 Pasi Eronen State Changes to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup by Pasi Eronen
2008-11-24
10 Pasi Eronen Last Call was requested by Pasi Eronen
2008-11-24
10 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2008-11-24
10 (System) Last call text was added
2008-11-24
10 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2008-11-22
10 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2008-11-22
07 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-07.txt
2008-10-20
10 Pasi Eronen State Changes to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from AD Evaluation by Pasi Eronen
2008-10-20
10 Pasi Eronen Sent AD Evaluation comments to WG mailing list -- probably a revised
ID with minor clarifications/nit fixes is needed
2008-10-08
10 Pasi Eronen State Changes to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested by Pasi Eronen
2008-09-29
10 Pasi Eronen
Document shepherd writeup:


Technical Summary

  DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) defines a domain-level authentication
  framework for email to permit verification of the source and …
Document shepherd writeup:


Technical Summary

  DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) defines a domain-level authentication
  framework for email to permit verification of the source and contents of
  messages.  This document specifies an adjunct mechanism to aid in assessing
  messages that do not contain a DKIM signature for the domain used in the
  author's address.  It defines a record that can advertise whether a domain
  signs its outgoing mail, and how other hosts can access that record.

Working Group Summary

  draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-06 is the 7th official WG draft, following on from
  3 iterations of an individual submission (draft-allman-dkim-ssp)
  with the -00 version dating back to January 2006. The current draft
  has passed WGLC with solid support in the DKIM WG. Some minor editorial
  changes were make post-WGLC based on (a few) comments received on
  the -05 draft.

  The DKIM WG used the rt.psg.com tracker for its work (queue=dkim)
  and processed O(50) issues for this document over the period.

Document Quality

  The document has undergone thorough review in the WG resulting in
  various revisions, typically removing features or renaming elements
  of the protocol, however, the basic core feature of ADSP has remained
  stable all through the process.

Personnel

  Stephen Farrell (stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie) is the shepherd for this
  document.

PROTO write-up:

(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?

  I have reviewed this vesion and believe it is ready for publication.
 

(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 undergone very thorough review in the WG. Some
  members of the DNS directorate have also been involved in
  discussions at various stages of its development.

(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?

  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.

  No concerns.

  I know of no IPR issues with this document.

(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?

  The WG has a strong concensus that this document should proceed.


(1.g)  Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document
satisfies all ID nits?  (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html 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?  If the
document does not already indicate its intended status at the top of the first
page, please indicate the intended status here.

  The nits tool generates one warning only ("Authors' Adresses" section
  title).

(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].

    References are split, there are no downrefs.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations 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 [RFC2434].  If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the
needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

  Looks fine to me.

(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?

  Yes. There's one small bit of ABNF which is correct.
2008-09-29
10 Pasi Eronen State Changes to Publication Requested from AD is watching by Pasi Eronen
2008-09-29
10 Pasi Eronen Responsible AD has been changed to Pasi Eronen from Tim Polk
2008-09-29
10 Pasi Eronen Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from None
2008-09-29
10 Pasi Eronen [Note]: 'Document shepherd is Stephen Farrell (stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie)' added by Pasi Eronen
2008-09-19
06 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-06.txt
2008-08-05
05 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-05.txt
2008-07-02
04 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-04.txt
2008-02-23
03 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-03.txt
2008-02-20
10 Tim Polk Draft Added by Tim Polk in state AD is watching
2008-02-01
02 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-02.txt
2007-09-17
01 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01.txt
2007-06-18
00 (System) New version available: draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-00.txt