[05:18:35] --- frank has joined
[06:06:56] --- frank has left: Logged out
[09:18:09] --- dcrocker has joined
[10:04:20] --- pk has joined
[10:04:30] --- Barry Leiba has joined
[10:04:41] --- pk is now known as Peter Koch
[10:17:14] --- dcrocker has left
[10:18:22] --- dcrocker has joined
[10:18:28] --- dcrocker has left
[10:23:38] --- dcrocker has joined
[10:23:45] --- dcrocker has left
[10:25:44] --- dcrocker has joined
[10:44:58] <Barry Leiba> Dave, do you know how I can change the meeting title using a jabber message?
[10:45:24] <Barry Leiba> (Exodus has a function to do that, but Trillian doesn't seem to, and I don't know what I have to type...)
[10:46:53] <dcrocker> I'm using exodus. and it just has an icon, next to the subject, that you click on.
[10:47:19] <Barry Leiba> Right, I know. I'll have to find out what the magic incantation is.
[10:47:35] <Barry Leiba> Inna meantime, would you change the title to "DKIM meeting at 1500 UTC"?
[10:47:36] <dcrocker> haven't used trillian. sorry
[10:47:55] * dcrocker has changed the subject to: DKIM meeting at 1500 UTC
[10:48:27] * dcrocker has changed the subject to: DKIM meeting at 1500 UTC, Thurs, 12 Oct
[10:55:53] --- thomasm has joined
[11:01:02] --- tonyhansen has joined
[11:01:46] <Barry Leiba> OK, it's time to start. I see Doug's not here, which is too bad. And Stephen's not here.
[11:01:58] <Barry Leiba> Maybe we should wait a few minutes to see about Stephen, at least.
[11:02:05] --- eric has joined
[11:02:13] <Barry Leiba> Let's start at 1505, about 3 minutes.
[11:02:22] --- fenton has joined
[11:03:02] <fenton> Hello?
[11:03:17] <Barry Leiba> Hey Jim.
[11:03:20] <eric> hi Jim
[11:03:45] <fenton> Hi...It was quiet so I was wondering if this was working
[11:03:46] <Barry Leiba> Is "pk" != Peter Koch?
[11:04:06] <dcrocker> Issues link is at <https://rt.psg.com/Search/Results.html?Query=Queue%20%3D%20%27dkim%27%20AND%20(Status%20%3D%20%27open%27%20OR%20Status%20%3D%20%27new%27)&Rows=50>
[11:05:02] <Barry Leiba> "pk" and Peter have the same address, so I guess they're the same. Both are listed in the roll call here, so I wasn't sure.
[11:05:11] <Barry Leiba> OK, it's 1505, so let's get started.
[11:05:31] <Barry Leiba> I'd like to start with issue 1360, the one about delegation vs designation.
[11:05:39] * dcrocker has changed the subject to: 1360
[11:05:44] <Barry Leiba> We should be able to put that to rest, one way or t'other now.
[11:06:03] <Barry Leiba> It seems to me that we have Doug and William in favour of it, but not much other support.
[11:06:21] <Barry Leiba> Does anyone on this chat support adding "designation" (or whatever we'd like to call it)?
[11:06:35] <dcrocker> i have to admit that i cannot keep straight which term refers to which scenario
[11:06:37] <fenton> Not I.
[11:06:54] <Barry Leiba> To clarify for Dave (and any others):
[11:07:15] <Barry Leiba> "delegation" is where one domain hosts a key for another, and the other domain signs for the first.
[11:07:45] <Barry Leiba> "designation" is Doug's idea, where the sending domain has its own key and identifies itself, and the domain it's sending on behalf of says "they can sign for me".
[11:08:06] <Barry Leiba> I'm...
[11:08:07] <Barry Leiba> not...
[11:08:09] <Barry Leiba> hearing...
[11:08:12] <Barry Leiba> much support.
[11:08:46] <Barry Leiba> OK, I think the mailing list had insufficient support to pick this up, so I'm going to put in the chat summary that we want to reject this one.
[11:09:18] <fenton> Do we want to ratify this on the list, since it's controversial?
[11:09:42] <thomasm> I think it needs to be just done on the list
[11:09:44] <Barry Leiba> Yes, which is why I'll put it in the chat summary, and see if there's any further support on the list.
[11:09:50] <Barry Leiba> Let's back up, then, and run through the open issues.
[11:10:02] <Barry Leiba> Dave, d'you want to say anything about 1356?
[11:10:21] <dcrocker> just a sec.
[11:10:30] * dcrocker has changed the subject to: 1356
[11:11:12] <dcrocker> I view that item as among the set that awaits the next version of Michael's draft.
[11:11:29] <dcrocker> I do not know of pending discussion needed for it.
[11:11:52] <Barry Leiba> OK. Most of the other open ones are yours too. Which need discussion here?
[11:11:58] <thomasm> right dave -- I'll just work with you before we publish the next draft
[11:12:13] <dcrocker> thomas - ack
[11:13:33] <dcrocker> barry - i've discussed all 3 with thomas and he's doing a revision. so i don't see any discussion needed, here, unless others do.
[11:14:04] <Barry Leiba> OK, which numbers are those? (There are five with your name on them.)
[11:17:00] <Barry Leiba> Hm, things are slow today.....
[11:17:09] <thomasm> I was about to do a AYT
[11:17:14] <dcrocker> not 'things', just me. sorry. just a sec
[11:17:19] <Barry Leiba> :-)
[11:17:43] <Barry Leiba> While Dave's looking... the only one that doesn't have his name on it is one that talks about typos: 1365.
[11:18:08] <Barry Leiba> That says that Doug was going to bring something to the list about it. But I think I missed that. Did that happen?
[11:18:15] <dcrocker> i see my name on only 3: 1356, 1363 and 1364.
[11:18:50] <fenton> also 1357, 1362
[11:18:52] <dcrocker> oh. 1357
[11:18:53] <Barry Leiba> 1357 and 1362 also say "dcrocker"
[11:19:35] <dcrocker> sigh. right. (wait a sec while i finish my coffee. thought it was strong enough today.)
[11:20:00] <Barry Leiba> Sorry for the early hour -- I know it's only 8 a.m. there.
[11:20:07] <dcrocker> so. yes, i believe all are now awaiting michael's draft.
[11:20:24] <Barry Leiba> OK. Anyone know anything about 1365?
[11:20:49] <dcrocker> barry - i'm pretty sure i've got a clear enough track record to mean that my trying to use the hour as an excuse is merely politeness...
[11:20:55] <fenton> I think the remaining issue in 1365 is the question about "I don't send mail" in SSP.
[11:21:16] <thomasm> right -- I think doug was supposed to send that to the list
[11:21:25] <thomasm> as I recall he did, but it didn't get any responses
[11:21:33] <Barry Leiba> Yes, the question is whether he did. I don't see it.
[11:22:50] <Barry Leiba> OK, then I think we're just waiting for the next draft, and we can cut this short... unless anyone has something they want to discuss. I'll open it up to anything now.
[11:23:03] <Peter Koch> FYI: I also still have an action (from two weeks ago) to open an item on discovery and tree walking; need to review the earlier discussion, not yet completed
[11:23:17] <Barry Leiba> OK
[11:23:18] <thomasm> yes, I did find the mail where doug sent it out
[11:23:30] <Barry Leiba> Mike, what's the subject line?
[11:23:35] <thomasm> hold on..
[11:24:07] <Barry Leiba> Oh, here, the "does not send" one. Got it.
[11:24:12] <thomasm> that's it
[11:25:18] --- wildcat has joined
[11:25:34] <Barry Leiba> The default action was to take the text in question out. Three participants spoke up to leave it, in addition to Doug.
[11:25:53] --- wildcat is now known as hsantos
[11:25:53] <Barry Leiba> So I think we have support for leaving it in.
[11:26:08] <thomasm> maybe we should talk about it in SD?
[11:26:23] <Barry Leiba> That sounds good. We'll leave it open and put it on the SD agenda.
[11:27:20] <Barry Leiba> Anything else here?
[11:27:49] <Barry Leiba> Does anyone else want to earmark something for the agenda for SD?
[11:28:08] <Barry Leiba> Status update on -base: ...
[11:28:33] <thomasm> is there a chance that dkim base will be in ietf last call by then?
[11:28:40] <Barry Leiba> Russ returned his AD comments on -base-05. Eric has made a -base-06 to address those, which we'll send back up.
[11:29:10] <Barry Leiba> We should be able to do that by this weekend.
[11:29:19] <Barry Leiba> When it hits IETF last call is up to the IESG.
[11:29:37] <Barry Leiba> If Russ accepts the changes in -06, he'll schedule it for the IESG telechat.
[11:29:46] <Barry Leiba> They then decide to put it out for last call.
[11:29:59] <thomasm> ah, ok...
[11:30:33] <Barry Leiba> OK, then I think we can adjourn this chat.
[11:30:43] <dcrocker> I was recently asked how long the IESG and RFC publication process are likely to take. While, of course, they can take almost forever, my guess is that we'd be doing well if it made RFC publication by the end of March.
[11:30:56] <Barry Leiba> Mike, when d'you think you'll get the next SSP draft in?
[11:31:15] <thomasm> I guess I'm going to try to get it in before draft cutoff
[11:31:26] <tonyhansen> I'm looking at the tracker page: I can never figure out how to get at the comments themselves! :-(
[11:31:59] <Barry Leiba> Hm... I think end of March is pessimistic. I rather think we'll be doing poorly if we DON'T get it by end of March.
[11:32:43] <dcrocker> We haven't hit last call yet. This is a topic that I'm expecting to see "interesting" comments on. That will take time.
[11:32:47] <Barry Leiba> We ought to be able to get it to the RFC editor by end of year.
[11:33:03] <Barry Leiba> You think last call will send it back for significant revisions?
[11:33:09] <Barry Leiba> It's certainly possible.
[11:33:09] <dcrocker> In addition, the RFC publication process now involves a formal pass by a professional editor. All of this takes time.
[11:33:19] <fenton> I need to check exactly how long it was, but I think a couple of months for RFC Editor to do -threats
[11:33:33] <dcrocker> "significant revisions" is not what I'm expecting, as much as "significant debate".
[11:33:33] <fenton> And -base is MUCH more complex
[11:33:45] <Barry Leiba> Yes, a couple of months for "threats", but we also didn't push it.
[11:33:53] <Barry Leiba> I intend to sit on people about -base.
[11:34:12] <fenton> I also don't know how they prioritize their queue...I think Standards Track is higher priority than Informative
[11:34:22] <Barry Leiba> I don't know how much I can speed things up by doing that. But we weren't in a hurry for -threats.
[11:34:28] <fenton> ...I mean Informational
[11:34:34] <dcrocker> The formal editor step is an interesting dilemma. They seem to do quite a good job, but I believe that RFCs do not really need to have it done.
[11:34:50] <Barry Leiba> Anyway, it's all speculation. I certainly think March is a reasonable date to suggest to people who're asking.
[11:34:58] <fenton> I thought they added real value in their editing of -threats.
[11:35:54] <dcrocker> when I say "do a good job" yes I mean that they make the document better. my point is that it is expensive in money and time, and I believe that the improvements are usually not essential to the basic benefit of an RFC.
[11:36:05] <dcrocker> anyhow, this is beer bof stuff.
[11:37:45] <fenton> Is the WG chat formally adjourned?
[11:38:01] <Barry Leiba> As to "significant debate", I guess that affects what the IESG does after last call is over.
[11:38:25] <Barry Leiba> Yes, WG is adjourned. As of 1530, actually... we've been in beer bof time since then. :-)
[11:38:42] <thomasm> it's a little early, but if you insist
[11:38:43] <dcrocker> yup. i was leaving out the iesg potential delay.
[11:39:03] <Barry Leiba> It's possible for unresolved debate in last call to make the IESG waffle on it, or send it back for rework.
[11:39:18] <Barry Leiba> I don't really foresee debate that results in that, though.
[11:39:23] <dcrocker> and that's not counting the waffling the iesg can generate on its own.
[11:39:24] <Barry Leiba> But, then, I'm an optimist.
[11:40:13] <dcrocker> optimism is nice, but the track record of security, spam, and iesg, each on their own and nevermind combining them, kinda undercut the ability to be optimistic...
[11:41:17] <thomasm> one thing barry -- it seems to me that it would be good if ietf last call coincided with SD...
[11:41:23] <thomasm> or not?
[11:41:44] <Barry Leiba> They won't put out last call during an IETF meeting.
[11:41:58] <Barry Leiba> It'll be after (there's not enough time for it before).
[11:42:22] <thomasm> ie, no telechat between now and then?
[11:42:53] --- hsantos has left
[11:42:56] <Barry Leiba> I figure the earliest it can get on the IESG telechat is the 26th (I'm not sure whether that's a telechat day or not).
[11:43:26] <Barry Leiba> Even if they decide, on that chat, to start last call, at that point I don't think they'll start it 'til after SD.
[11:43:44] <thomasm> oh ok... maybe it is for the better
[11:44:13] <thomasm> I expect that we're going to hear a rehash of some old things -- not sure if f2f is better to get that out of the way or not
[11:44:38] <tonyhansen> knowing that the iesg has discussed it and approved it for ietf lc would be worth reporting in sd
[11:44:41] <Barry Leiba> F2F doesn't matter -- last call is done by email, and that's going to happen anyway.
[11:45:29] <Barry Leiba> Yes, it'll be nice if we can report in SD that last call will start after SD. I'll see if I can get Russ to move it along that quickly.
[11:50:22] --- thomasm has left
[11:50:36] <Barry Leiba> FYI, -threats went into the RFC-ED queue on 7/25, became RFC 4686 on 10/4.
[11:50:46] <Barry Leiba> (I just checked the tracker)
[11:54:28] <fenton> I guess my 2 month estimate was about right then.
[11:54:51] <fenton> Time to go become a commuter...see you.
[11:55:03] --- fenton has left
[11:55:41] <Barry Leiba> I'm flying away too. I'll post a summary to the mailing list this afternoon.
[11:55:42] --- dcrocker has left
[11:55:45] --- Barry Leiba has left
[11:55:45] --- Barry Leiba has joined
[11:59:48] --- tonyhansen has left
[12:18:42] --- eric has left
[13:32:07] --- Peter Koch has left: Computer went to sleep
[15:48:25] --- Barry Leiba has left: Logging off
[20:13:26] --- john.levine has joined
[20:13:31] --- john.levine has left