Subject: Re: [saag] [ietf-dkim] DKIM summary report (IETF 75)

From: hector <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:40:34 -0400

Whats missing is possible a survey on why there is a market of 
potential implementators who are on the fence, have not gave the "go 
ahead" or are just plain leary about the whole thing, even among those 
who have been involved since early on.

In other words, a survey to find out what are the barriers to 
implementation.

--

Barry Leiba wrote:

> The DKIM working group met on Tuesday afternoon.  The group's
> chartered work is nearly done (the last document is in WGLC, and two
> others are now in the RFC Editor queue), so the goal of this meeting
> was to discuss implementation reports and draft-standard progression
> for the base protocol.
> 
> Dave Crocker has posted implementation surveys to the mailing list,
> but has so far gotten few replies.  WG participants were urged to
> complete them, and to pass them on to others.  Barry will pass them to
> MAAWG (Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group) and urge response, as IETF
> liaison to MAAWG.  Barry would like to collect data not only on
> feature use by signers and verifiers, but also on what use the
> verifiers make of the results.
> 
> There was much discussion about dropping unused or little-used
> features in the process of going to draft standard.  We note that RFC
> 2026 *requires* dropping features that are truly unused, but whether
> to drop others is a different question.  Several opinions were given
> about keeping all features, because, while there's plenty of
> experience with signing and verifying, knowledge of usage of the
> result of verifying is still limited.  We don't yet know what
> verifiers will decide is important, over time.  Counter-argument:
> history shows that when we learn that, we'll find that the features we
> kept purely speculatively will be the wrong ones anyway.
> 
> Informal vote showed approximately a 2-to-1 preference for keeping
> *all* features, versus removing some.  Chairs don't consider that to
> be sufficient for "rough consensus", so it will be discussed on the
> list.  Pasi pointed out, and the chairs agree, that because we had
> consensus on these to start with, the default action, lacking clear
> consensus to remove a feature, is to keep it.
> 
> There was also discussion indicating that documenting DKIM use cases
> could be helpful.  Perhaps this could be added to the "deployment"
> document (in WGLC now), or perhaps using an easily updated wiki.
> 
> Barry Leiba (and Stephen Farrell)
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html