IETF 65 DKIM WG DRAFT agenda (20060318) DKIM will meet twice Monday, 1300-1500 Wednesday, 1510-1610 Both sessions are in the Cortez, CD room. Outline agenda -------------- Monday: 1. Agenda bashing (5, chairs) 2. Threats issues (30, Fenton) 3. Base document (90, Allman) Wednesday: 4. Update at start of Wednesday session (5, chairs) 5. SSP issues (20, Fenton) 6. Overview document introduction (10, Hansen) 7. Proposal Clarifcations (20, Otis) 8. DKIM Message Corpus (5, Hansen) 9. Open Mike (5, all) Meeting goals ------------- All discussion of SSP and other issues is to follow consideration of the OPEN issues [1] on the threats and base documents. This agenda will be updated to reflect "New Issues" created before the meeting date. See [2] for a mail describing how we'd like to handle such issues. The goal for the first slot (and our main goal for IETF-65) is to resolve all threats WG last call issues and as many of the known base issues as we can. If we don't get through all of that in the first slot then the chairs may continue those agenda items into the second slot. This means that the timings are approximate given that new issues can be raised on the list in the meantime. The goals for the second slot are:- - Have some discussion of known SSP issues - Introduce the overview document - Allow Doug to clarify some of the proposals he's made on the list that weren't well understood - Provide an open mike slot Details ------- 1. Agenda bashing (5, chairs) 2. Threats issues (30, Fenton) There are currently 4 open issues here. 1171 draft-ietf-dkim-threats-00 Clarification of the DKIM mechanism new dkim Nobody 0 dotis@mail-abuse.org 6 weeks ago 6 weeks ago 0 I think the title above doesn't match the thread which was "Misstatement of the..." ? OPEN got some support, no list opposition, but not included in threats-01 http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001907.html 1172 disagreement on impact and probability of Attacks Against Message Signatures new dkim Nobody 0 dotis@mail-abuse.org 6 weeks ago 6 weeks ago 0 OPEN some discussion, no clear consensus to change or not http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001910.html 1220 Include new "known message replay" threat? Stephen Farell OPEN - no discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002486.html 1222 ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator dhc@crocker.net OPEN - some discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002495.html 3. Base document (90, Allman) There are currently 24 open issues here. 1183 carryover: draft-allman-dkim-base-01.txt - Should we have an r= tag in either the signature or key record new dkim Nobody 0 lear@ofcourseimright.com 5 weeks ago 5 weeks ago 0 OPEN no thread? 1184 carryover: Develop plan for transition of multiple crypto algs (a=) new dkim Nobody 0 lear@ofcourseimright.com 5 weeks ago 5 weeks ago 0 OPEN - not much discussion of how to transition, though not much disagreement either http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002414.html 1185 carryover: draft-allman-dkim-base-01.txt Transition sha-1 to sha-256 new dkim Nobody 0 lear@ofcourseimright.com 5 weeks ago 5 weeks ago 0 OPEN - not quite closed on the actual exact wording http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002414.html 1193 base spec: instead of signing the message, sign the hash new dkim Nobody 0 lear@ofcourseimright.com 3 weeks ago 3 weeks ago 0 OPEN no (recent) thread 1194 base spec: whitespace in signature? new dkim Nobody 0 eric@sendmail.com 3 weeks ago 3 weeks ago 0 OPEN - not sure if this is the right thread http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002464.html 1195 draft-ietf-dkim-base-00 - 3.4.6 Example (Canonicalization) new dkim Nobody 0 hsantos@santronics.com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks ago 0 OPEN - no discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002148.html 1196 Base: Upgrade indication and protection against downgrade attacks new dkim Nobody 0 MarkD+dkim@yahoo-inc.com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks ago 0 OPEN - lots of discussion, no clear closure http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002163.html 1200 MUST vs SHOULD in Verifier Actions section (-base) new dkim Nobody 0 eric@sendmail.com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks ago 0 OPEN not sure which thread 1201 change the syntax from SPF compat to human compat new dkim Nobody 0 MarkD+dkim@yahoo-inc.com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks ago 0 OPEN http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002219.html 1203 extendable RR records? new dkim Nobody 0 tony@att.com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks ago 0 ACCEPT - the title of this issue is misleading, its really about extra options to be specified in a DKIM TXT record http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002260.html 1204 issue with DKIM simple header algorithm and milter-based implementations new dkim Nobody 0 tony@att.com 2 weeks ago 2 weeks ago 0 OPEN - seemed like consensus but no clear change http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002273.html 1215 clarifications on use of l= tag Eric Allman OPEN - no discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002185.html 1216 signature h= and z= tags Hector Santos OPEN - little discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002375.html 1222 ABNF: Sender = Originator / Operator dhc@crocker.net OPEN - some discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002495.html 1224 DKIM and mailing lists Stephen Farrell OPEN - too much discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002534.html 1227 bunch of nits for base Stephen Farrell OPEN - no disussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002615.html 1231 some process-problematic references in base Stephen Farrell OPEN - no discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002616.html NNNN base editorial Stephen Farrell OPEN - no discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002617.html NNNN Clarify delegation to 3rd parties Stephen Farrell OPEN - no discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002618.html 1230 selectors and key rollover Stephen Farrell OPEN - no discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002619.htmlo 1226 512 too short? Stephen Farrell OPEN - some discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002620.html 1228 Why is s= REQUIRED? Stephen Farrell OPEN - a tiny bit of discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002621.html 1229 z= field and EAI wg Stephen Farrell OPEN - a tiny bit of discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002622.html NNNN Analyzing Failures: List of Possible Reasons Hector Santor OPEN - a tiny bit of discussion http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002694.html 4. Update at start of Wednesday session (5, chairs) 5. SSP issues (20, Fenton) There are 2 open issues here. 1217 should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable? Mark Delaney REJECT this is a duplicate of 1201 http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002219.html NNNN should r= be localpart only? Mark Delaney OPEN http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002220.html 6. Overview document introduction (10, Hansen) 7. Clarifcations (20, Otis) 5. Open Mike (5, all) [1] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/002483.html [2] http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2006q1/001880.html