DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) Author Domain Signing Practices (ADSP)
draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-10

[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.

[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.

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.

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.