DKIM working group session, IETF 80 (Prague), Monday, 28 March 2011.
Begin at 13:00.

1. Discussion of the implementation report document: 
Murray gave status of the document.  There are no issues with this document.
It will not be last-called, but will only be used to support the 4871bis advancement.
As such, it will be recorded on the IESG page with other interoperability reports.

2. Discussion and resolution of 4871bis issues:
We reviewed the changes since the last reviewed version.  The editors believe they
have all the open issues addressed.  Remaining changes required after discussion:
   1. Rewrite paragraph 3 in section 8.15, due to Dave's concern about strong
      advice that's out of scope for the document.
   2. Murray will add a paragraph in an appendix advising removal of empty "g=".
   3. Murray will add IANA considerations to add a "status" column to the registries.
      Values will be "active" and "historic", and "g=" will be made historic.

The schedule is set for changes to be made by 10 April, WGLC after an updated version
is posted.
   
3. Discussion of mailinglists document:
Murray listed some questions he has...
   1. Should we include an appendix discussing what we see as useful changes to MUAs?
      a: No; out of scope.  Perhaps an MUA BCP done at another time.
   2. Should this be Informational or BCP?
      a: BCP, making it clear when we're insufficiently certain about something.
         Last Call will sort out any objections.
   3. Should we remove discussion about dealing with broken DKIM implementations?
      a: No.
   4. Should we put advice in about what header fields re-signing MLMs should sign?
      a: No.
   5. Should explicitly reference ESPs?  They're different from MLMs.
      a: No.
   6. Should we change advice about subdomains, creating "streams"?
      a: No.

The schedule is set for changes to be made by 10 April, WGLC after an updated version
is posted.

4. Discussion of the future of the working group

Two charter items not yet done:
   3. Collect data on the deployment, interoperability, and
      effectiveness of the Author Domain Signing Practices protocol
      (RFC 5617), and determine if/when it's ready to advance on the
      standards track. Update it at Proposed Standard, advance it to
      Draft Standard, deprecate it, or determine another disposition,
      as appropriate.
   4. Taking into account the data collected in (2) and (3), update
      the overview and deployment/operations documents. These are
      considered living documents, and should be updated periodically,
      as we have more real-world experience.

- Is there energy and desire to do this?
- Should we recharter instead for different work?
- Should we close the working group?

Consensus in room and jabber is to close.  Will confirm on the mailing list.
Tony noted that there are changes to deployment/overview docs because of
removal of "g=", along with other minor changes.  We can handle those before
the WG closes, or Stephen (as AD) will sponsor that as an individual submission.

Adjourn at 14:05.

---
Documents:
 implementation: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report
 4871bis: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis
 mailinglists: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists