Subject: [ietf-dkim] jabber logs into working group mailing list archives?

From: Dave CROCKER <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:34:44 -0700

IETF meeting jabber sessions often hold some very useful gems.  And at their 
worst, each one isn't all that big.

It occurs to me that we should try to fold them into the regular email archive, 
perhaps simply by sending the wg mailing list a copy afterwards?

d/
-- 

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

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:46:37 -0700

> perhaps simply by sending the wg mailing list a copy afterwards?

Good idea.  Here is the log from the March 25 IETF 74 meeting.

03/25/2009    09:09:25 AM    from Jim Fenton to All Participants:
    Note that I have remotely muted some people -- you may need to
unmute yourself to speak
03/25/2009    09:09:33 AM    from Dennis Dayman to All Participants:
    thx
03/25/2009    09:10:02 AM    from Eliot Lear to Host (privately):
    if you remotely someone they may not be able to unmute themselves
03/25/2009    09:10:53 AM    from Dennis Dayman to All Participants:
    is that someone in teh audience speaking?
03/25/2009    09:10:57 AM    from Jim Fenton to All Participants:
    ok then nudge me here or on Jabber
03/25/2009    09:10:59 AM    from Jon Callas to All Participants:
    could the speakerget closer to the mic?
03/25/2009    09:11:07 AM    from Jon Callas to All Participants:
    what's the jabber room?
03/25/2009    09:11:37 AM    from Jim Fenton to All Participants:
    jabber room is [email-masked]
03/25/2009    09:12:25 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    is there a better audio stream, or is webex it?
03/25/2009    09:12:56 AM    from Jon Callas to All Participants:
    Yes, can we get a mic to the speaker?
03/25/2009    09:13:48 AM    from Dave Crocker to All Participants:
    there is a conference audio stream from the
ietf:<http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/74/>
03/25/2009    09:14:53 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    webex audio is working now (though it's kinda amusing to listen to
both at once)
03/25/2009    09:23:15 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    can barely hear Dave
03/25/2009    09:24:20 AM    from Dennis Dayman to All Participants:
    audio is great using the stream from IETF website
03/25/2009    09:24:47 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    thanks, I'll switch over -- though I noticed it's a few seconds delayed
03/25/2009    09:30:46 AM    from Dave Crocker to All Participants:
    "can barely hear Dave " - wow.  I don't get that very often.
03/25/2009    09:31:42 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    Dennis was right: this 64k mp3 stream sounds way better than the
overcompressed audio  from webex
03/25/2009    09:32:21 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    The IETF audo stream is great!
03/25/2009    09:32:33 AM    from Jon Callas to All Participants:
    where is it?
03/25/2009    09:32:50 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    http://feed.verilan.com:8000/imperial_a
03/25/2009    09:33:13 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    Jon, http://feed.verilan.com:8000/imperial_a.m3u
03/25/2009    09:33:52 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    I'm guessing that we'll still need to stay on the phone if we want
to talk, right?
03/25/2009    09:34:10 AM    from Jim Fenton to All Participants:
    right, or we can channel you if you type here or on the jabber room
03/25/2009    09:35:33 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    Love to know who is currently speaking.
03/25/2009    09:35:50 AM    from Jim Fenton to All Participants:
    this is barry
03/25/2009    09:37:00 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I think Hector means who is speaking voice
03/25/2009    09:38:01 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    +1 to what Ellen is saying
03/25/2009    09:39:21 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    d= is the required one
03/25/2009    09:40:40 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    I agree too.
03/25/2009    09:41:29 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    How does one identify a spoofed message from DKIM base?
03/25/2009    09:42:05 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    I agree.
03/25/2009    09:42:43 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    who is speaking?
03/25/2009    09:43:07 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    Murray K
03/25/2009    09:44:26 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    some good side conversation on the jabber, BTW
03/25/2009    09:44:42 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    [email-masked]?
03/25/2009    09:44:44 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    My pidgin client keeps on blowing up when I try to join the room
03/25/2009    09:44:56 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    madkins: yep
03/25/2009    09:45:17 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    works fine in iChat... *shu rg*
03/25/2009    09:51:15 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    Is that not determine by the DOMAIN signer?
03/25/2009    09:51:51 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    The signer should have the alternate say what a verifier should do.
03/25/2009    09:52:09 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    as far was what is bad.
03/25/2009    09:52:51 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    I agree.
03/25/2009    09:56:50 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    Nodding head.
03/25/2009    10:00:01 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    Man, its amazing that Dave feels this way. He doesn't reflect these
views in the WG.
03/25/2009    10:05:19 AM    from Florian Sager to All Participants:
    I agree, there is some need for a collection of demands from
practical work
03/25/2009    10:05:47 AM    from Florian Sager to All Participants:
    I guess the amount of output values will turn out to be rather small.
03/25/2009    10:06:55 AM    from Dennis Dayman to All Participants:
    he's coming out of the closet? ;)
03/25/2009    10:17:41 AM    from Florian Sager to All Participants:
    don't forget there may be data (e.g. user-based-identifiers) the
signer should be able to provide
somehow and that can be used by an accessor if the accessor trusts the
signing domain.
This is abstract from DKIM itself but it seems to me it's technically
reasonable to transfer this data.
as part of the signature.
03/25/2009    10:18:36 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    yep, that's the part that's best left vague for now (IMO)
03/25/2009    10:18:55 AM    from Dennis Dayman to All Participants:
    +1
03/25/2009    10:24:09 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    The signature is only that the signing domain is taking some
responsibility for that particular mail
03/25/2009    10:25:39 AM    from Dennis Dayman to All Participants:
    who is that?
03/25/2009    10:25:48 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    But there is a BASE ACCESSOR - the 1st domain signing domain.
03/25/2009    10:26:11 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    does it matter unles we are talking about ADSP?
03/25/2009    10:34:15 AM    from Ellen Siegel to All Participants:
    what happened to the jabber room?
03/25/2009    10:34:19 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    Did the jabber room crash?
03/25/2009    10:34:32 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    I don't think so
03/25/2009    10:34:34 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    seems to have for me.
03/25/2009    10:34:39 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    me too.
03/25/2009    10:34:59 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    nice to have a backup ;-)
03/25/2009    10:35:07 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    ah, nm. it has
03/25/2009    10:35:46 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    hm yes, perhaps it has.  wacky.
03/25/2009    10:36:05 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    I just created: [email-masked]
03/25/2009    10:38:11 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    MIC: are these architectural components or functions of the same
component?
03/25/2009    10:38:30 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    do we have verification and assessement or verifier and assessor?
03/25/2009    10:39:08 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    architectural components
03/25/2009    10:39:48 AM    from Dave Crocker to All Participants:
    Barry's summary of tasks:  1) fix/replace use of 'opaque'; 2) fix
definition of 'assessor'; and 3) clarify must/may statement on output to
assessor
03/25/2009    10:39:59 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I think I agree with Mike Adkins.... architectural components gives
us more flexibility down the road
03/25/2009    10:41:01 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    the distinction is that you don't have to worry about API issues if
you have functions as opposed to componentry
03/25/2009    10:41:03 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    is the jabber room open?
03/25/2009    10:41:26 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    I'm unable to connect to either the official jabber, or your alternate
03/25/2009    10:41:29 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    you don't have to get into MUST/ MAYs
03/25/2009    10:41:33 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    which was jim's point
03/25/2009    10:41:42 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    Do you feel that API issues would be that significant?
03/25/2009    10:41:48 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    I agree with your distinction, but I believe they are implemented as
architectural components in existing systems
03/25/2009    10:42:06 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    not in all such systems
03/25/2009    10:42:10 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    true
03/25/2009    10:42:11 AM    from Jim Fenton to All Participants:
    Yeah, it looks like there are problems with the jabber room
03/25/2009    10:42:30 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    if you want to do both in the some component, you may
03/25/2009    10:42:35 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    *same
03/25/2009    10:43:17 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    but the strength of a standard identifier is that the assessment
component can be maintained by another organization
03/25/2009    10:43:17 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    Eliot, Michael: might that be the core of the confusion?
03/25/2009    10:43:59 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    I'm not sure what the confusion is about.... I'm not sure any of the
confused people are verifiers or assessors
03/25/2009    10:44:28 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    michael, your concern is the sender.  right?
03/25/2009    10:45:03 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    which Michael?
03/25/2009    10:45:06 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    adkins
03/25/2009    10:45:07 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    my concern is the small verifiers that cannot perform their own
assessments
03/25/2009    10:45:25 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    why would they perform their own verification?
03/25/2009    10:45:27 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    senders will follow suit with the major isps
03/25/2009    10:45:45 AM    from Michael Adkins to All Participants:
    verification requires access to the mail stream
03/25/2009    10:46:30 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    so then what gets sent to the assessor?  ONLY the SDID?
03/25/2009    10:47:23 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    There might be additional information as was discussed earleir but
it would be tied to SDID
03/25/2009    10:48:02 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    ok.  so we're talking about whitelist/blacklists
03/25/2009    10:48:07 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    as an example
03/25/2009    10:48:10 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    or it might be an extension to DKIM
03/25/2009    10:48:49 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    ok.  i see your point.
03/25/2009    10:48:56 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    MIC: there's a constituency who keep saying "DKIM is useless"
because they don't understand it.  they're confused.  a long update
process would add to their confusion.
03/25/2009    10:49:15 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    or it might be something along the lines of Daves afilias proposal
03/25/2009    10:49:20 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    (there are also a few who say it's useless because they DO
understand it, and disagree, but that's different)
03/25/2009    10:49:51 AM    from DKIM Chairs to All Participants:
    OK, JD... after Tony.
03/25/2009    10:50:02 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    thanks, chairs
03/25/2009    10:50:43 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    in that case, isn't it up to the verifier to decide what it wants
verified?
03/25/2009    10:51:38 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    if it wants to verify the From: line domain in the context of a
particular SDID, ...
03/25/2009    10:51:42 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    +1 to moving quickly, regardless of precise process used
03/25/2009    10:52:14 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    Do you mean verify Eliot or do you mean assess?
03/25/2009    10:52:28 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    verifier
03/25/2009    10:53:22 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I'll bite.... so how does the verifier verify the From address?
03/25/2009    10:53:42 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    now  I'm tempted to submit the peanut butter errata
03/25/2009    10:54:27 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    the verifier can't verify that the from address is true, but can
verify that it was signed -- and if it was signed by someone trusted,
then they can (if they wish)  assume that the from is true
03/25/2009    10:54:34 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    if the From: address is signed, (which it is), then it might want to
know something more granular.
03/25/2009    10:54:41 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    as an example
03/25/2009    10:54:51 AM    from Jon Callas to All Participants:
    (switching to phone as I have to get into the car.)
03/25/2009    10:55:12 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    the verifier might trust the assessor on both counts.
03/25/2009    10:55:32 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    thanks for squeezing my comment in there
03/25/2009    10:55:41 AM    from DKIM Chairs to All Participants:
    We try.
03/25/2009    10:55:58 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I don't think it does either
03/25/2009    10:56:16 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    But I'm not sure I would consider that verifying.... I would call it
assessing
03/25/2009    10:56:27 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    as in, "What do these signed things mean"
03/25/2009    10:56:33 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    all i'm getting to is jim's point about what is passed between the two.
03/25/2009    10:57:04 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    maybe in my example, the one guy is both verifier and assessor
03/25/2009    10:57:21 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    right
03/25/2009    10:58:33 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I'm just thinking out loud, but on the inbound side I might rely on
postini to validate but do additional assessment once it gets to our systems
03/25/2009    10:58:59 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    correct
03/25/2009    10:59:34 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    one of the cool things about DKIM (vs. IPs) is that it becomes
easier to have multiple layers of assessment with access to the same
identifier
03/25/2009    10:59:37 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    wow.
03/25/2009    10:59:44 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    wow is right.
03/25/2009    10:59:45 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I think architecture is important because it helps us test the theory
03/25/2009    11:00:56 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    louder Ellen
03/25/2009    11:02:03 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    I find myself caring less and less about the process the longer this
goes on.
03/25/2009    11:02:12 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    here's a q- what if your input to the assessor needs to be IP
address and domain?  what does the interface look like? 
03/25/2009    11:02:37 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    I could never survive this. :-)
03/25/2009    11:02:48 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    to a single assessor?
03/25/2009    11:03:29 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    and we know that happens.
03/25/2009    11:03:59 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    will relay
03/25/2009    11:04:01 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    just say it in the chat
03/25/2009    11:04:07 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    what's your vote?
03/25/2009    11:04:10 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    I vote for to follow procedure.
03/25/2009    11:04:17 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    hector: what's procedure?
03/25/2009    11:04:50 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    I'm for procedure
03/25/2009    11:04:58 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    what's procedure?
03/25/2009    11:05:02 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    there are two procedures at least
03/25/2009    11:05:03 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    pick one
03/25/2009    11:05:07 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    IETF process ;-)
03/25/2009    11:05:19 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    which one?
03/25/2009    11:05:34 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    It's the IETF Standards Process, Murray
03/25/2009    11:05:38 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    I'm with madkins
03/25/2009    11:05:48 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    ok so SM votes for I-D method
03/25/2009    11:05:53 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    anyone else?
03/25/2009    11:05:58 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    If we have a consensus on the 3 points raised earlier
03/25/2009    11:06:07 AM    from Ellen Siegel to All Participants:
    me too... more delay means additional time for confusion over the
ambiguities
03/25/2009    11:06:22 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    Well, Pasi can speed it up
03/25/2009    11:06:31 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    who's being harmed by that though?  i think that's a legitimate question
03/25/2009    11:06:35 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    is there a clear and present danger?
03/25/2009    11:06:39 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    madkins: me either
03/25/2009    11:06:44 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    me either
03/25/2009    11:06:52 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    no jabber lovin' here
03/25/2009    11:06:55 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    murray, that's been my question all along.
03/25/2009    11:06:58 AM    from Ellen Siegel to All Participants:
    it seems to be back up, but there's no content yet
03/25/2009    11:06:59 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    can we publish something informational as interim but letting people
know where the I-D is going
03/25/2009    11:07:02 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    Jabber is down
03/25/2009    11:07:19 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I prefer speed as well
03/25/2009    11:07:21 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    i still can't join jabber
03/25/2009    11:07:24 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    I have someone working on a backup room. Seems t only work with
local accounts.
03/25/2009    11:07:26 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    mhammer: why?
03/25/2009    11:07:33 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    I'm getting it opened up now.
03/25/2009    11:07:49 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I prefer speed which would indicate errata approach
03/25/2009    11:07:50 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    Me too!
03/25/2009    11:08:06 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    hammer: I think we should keep publishing clarification & discussion
on circleid & such, since the current process discussions are so
unwelcoming to anyone who just wants to find out WTF is going on with DKIM
03/25/2009    11:08:07 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    On the other hand I want to find a way to get consensus
03/25/2009    11:08:08 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    so you just want it done, plain and simple?
03/25/2009    11:08:25 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    in other words, non-IETF-process clarifications while the IETF
process churns on
03/25/2009    11:08:32 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    who speaking agin?
03/25/2009    11:08:37 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    that is risky J.D.
03/25/2009    11:08:38 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    Jim
03/25/2009    11:08:38 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    jim fenton
03/25/2009    11:08:42 AM    from Ellen Siegel to All Participants:
    was Jim, now Pasi
03/25/2009    11:08:54 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    hammer: agreed
03/25/2009    11:09:25 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    Murray: It's not simply that I want it done. It's that ongoing
confusion is detrimental to broader implementation
03/25/2009    11:09:43 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I want it done "right"
03/25/2009    11:09:54 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    in that sense i think getting ADSP out is more important than this;
our biggest complaint in industry is that that piece keeps changing
03/25/2009    11:10:06 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I agree Murray
03/25/2009    11:10:36 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    i= would be better if we want to keep g=
03/25/2009    11:10:40 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    But "this" can knock ADSP implementation off it's feet
03/25/2009    11:10:40 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    but regarding the SDID/AUID stuff, i agree it hasn't been explained
what the big present threat is which requires immediate processing
03/25/2009    11:11:13 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    the alleged ambiguities in 4871 haven't caused any obvious harm so
far, especially given the interop success
03/25/2009    11:11:54 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    Murray: I think there is a significant difference between interop
success and implementation in the wild
03/25/2009    11:11:59 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    i like the approach the errata effort is taking but i haven't seen
anything that makes me want to get behind "do it NOW"
03/25/2009    11:12:17 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    there may be, but have we heard any complaints to which we are
responding?
03/25/2009    11:12:53 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    Question: can someone explain what g= is for?
03/25/2009    11:13:02 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    Did you look at my post to CircleID on the message-id ehader or
Marks post about validation failrue cases?
03/25/2009    11:13:12 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    ehader = header
03/25/2009    11:13:29 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I need to type more carefully
03/25/2009    11:13:37 AM    from DKIM Chairs to All Participants:
    The jabber room appears to be back, so please move discussion there
(it's archived).
03/25/2009    11:13:40 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    MIC: I'm fairly certain that ADSP i= doesn't prevent other uses of i=
03/25/2009    11:13:42 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    what's circleid?
03/25/2009    11:13:51 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    some website
03/25/2009    11:14:28 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    I'll send you the link, Murray
03/25/2009    11:14:34 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    circleid.com, a multi-author blog type site focused on network stuff
03/25/2009    11:15:08 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    BTW jabber is still down
03/25/2009    11:15:13 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    yeah, still no jabber
03/25/2009    11:15:45 AM    from Paul Russell to All Participants:
    just successfully logged in to jabber & joined conference room
03/25/2009    11:15:47 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    It initially applies to a small number of domains
03/25/2009    11:15:49 AM    from Hector Santos to All Participants:
    Its open again from here JD
03/25/2009    11:16:05 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I think over time more domains will move in that direction
03/25/2009    11:16:05 AM    from Eliot Lear to All Participants:
    steve, you can say that we have to worry about precedence, but that
is what some people do with very valid reasons
03/25/2009    11:16:11 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    [email-masked], right?
03/25/2009    11:16:18 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    Yes
03/25/2009    11:16:24 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    Still not working for me
03/25/2009    11:16:50 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    Can someone ask my question about what g= is for?
03/25/2009    11:16:52 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    still not working for me either
03/25/2009    11:18:43 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    There is another value to using i=, which is that a single signing
key can be used for multiple subdomains (that are used in i=)
03/25/2009    11:18:49 AM    from Jim Fenton to All Participants:
    g= (which was in DomainKeys as well) is intended to allow a domain
owner to delegate a key to a party they don't fully trust
03/25/2009    11:19:18 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    Jim, what's the user if we are going for domains only?
03/25/2009    11:19:26 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    I mean what's the use
03/25/2009    11:19:43 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    If you trust em some but not enough then delegate a subdomain and
let them gen their own signing key
03/25/2009    11:20:02 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    but if you really only trust them some, why give them a key at all?
03/25/2009    11:20:05 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    Mike, it's not subdomain.  There are also constraints on the local-part
03/25/2009    11:20:16 AM    from sm to All Participants:
    I mean Michael
03/25/2009    11:20:19 AM    from John Levine to All Participants:
    Re Jim's point, this is the issue of asking recipients to do your
user management
03/25/2009    11:20:53 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    We delegate our newsletter mailings to ExactTarget... we give them a
seperate subdomain
03/25/2009    11:21:11 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    So let them send from whatever user at that subdomaint hey want
03/25/2009    11:21:25 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    If we have a problem we change DNS
03/25/2009    11:21:48 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    I think we'll see a nearly infinite number of different experiments
for dealing with delegation
03/25/2009    11:22:00 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    +1
03/25/2009    11:24:01 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    If I might digress a second.... for ADSP, what would be people think
of a tag along the lines of ADSP=Y if someone is publishing ADSP records?
03/25/2009    11:24:14 AM    from Murray Kucherawy to All Participants:
    interesting
03/25/2009    11:24:23 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    That would save a lot of DNS lookups
03/25/2009    11:24:32 AM    from DKIM Chairs to All Participants:
    But you only look for ADSP records if you don't have an
author-domain sig.
03/25/2009    11:24:40 AM    from DKIM Chairs to All Participants:
    So how would such a tag work?
03/25/2009    11:24:42 AM    from Jim Fenton to All Participants:
    The tag doesn't help if there's no signature at all
03/25/2009    11:24:51 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    Sure it does in a round about way
03/25/2009    11:25:13 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    If I'm sending you messages every day all day long that have ADSP=Y
03/25/2009    11:25:29 AM    from Paul Russell to All Participants:
    if there is no sig, there cannot possibly be a tag that would be a
component of the sig
03/25/2009    11:25:33 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    I'm assuming you are going to pay attention to that
03/25/2009    11:25:47 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    that is, you will be building a list of domains that sign
03/25/2009    11:25:57 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    "all" or "discardable"
03/25/2009    11:26:44 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    Jsut trying to address the complaint that initially there will be a
low number of domains publishing ADSP
03/25/2009    11:26:53 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    can the slides be on webex?
03/25/2009    11:27:08 AM    from Michael Hammer to All Participants:
    and thinking along the lines of hints
03/25/2009    11:28:20 AM    from Ellen Siegel to All Participants:
    mike (adkins): what's your take on r=?
03/25/2009    11:28:22 AM    from DKIM Chairs to All Participants:
    Slides are on Webex now.
03/25/2009    11:28:59 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    thanks, chairs
03/25/2009    11:29:58 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    I'd agree (wearing my assessor hat)
03/25/2009    11:31:03 AM    from J.D. Falk to All Participants:
    primary concern would be that adding this tag before everyone in the
industry understands that the d= / i= debate is settled will just make
the debate louder