Re: [apps-discuss] DMARC working group charter proposal

SM <> Tue, 02 April 2013 06:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD7521F9879 for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 23:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vML+6M6Y+Jbb for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 23:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E6721F9878 for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 23:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r326s5k1015810; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 23:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1364885653; bh=iLXeRbp6twXUlv8VdOSnZspRQ/QLRHxGB32DuVLLMjo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=cZFFEqio7RjX60+rg6BgCAoJ/9vkBR9/NqTJfCrLlqFk/AduseB3sirnIkgBYSs/I F3SgRyv8MhO7UIa+gqvtfMy8WaarFk7TmdxIeSAz6Pir+gHHSdTmKj1ZnT1Vnt9MA+ eadkm9gobZAEDqCpEWxPPiJmKNTs2gWobKJ68jDQ=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1364885653;; bh=iLXeRbp6twXUlv8VdOSnZspRQ/QLRHxGB32DuVLLMjo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=dSoP06+QQTHbzemjvBlfKSKTMVDaLiWsvdkqU+CMGZGHJSvA3Q2ALc/qk6Bzgmvio Tq8TtVYiH7iuGDhXa5SQk+UadlSi2XuBugz+bYdzuiGCKRIV+xGsTx6xAb1O3lUo6m YicdefkuE4Bxv+Hc70wc+7JPQVbaVXCVaOmU6I8s=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 23:27:35 -0700
From: SM <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] DMARC working group charter proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 06:55:45 -0000

Hi Dave,
At 22:33 01-04-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Please elaborate.  In particular, when has a well-constructed 
>charter constraint worked poorly?

I'll try and explain.  It might not answer the above question.  In 
general, if the author is reluctant to give the IETF change control 
it can end up as a problem during the working group work.  The 
constraints are less about what is in the charter and more about how 
to get the group to work together.

I don't know whether the DKIM charter was well-constructed or not (I 
have not looked at it recently).  I know that the question of DKIM 
was raised in one working group.  I am not thinking about whether the 
question has merit or not; in my humble opinion it makes the work 
more difficult.

>As for generating more work for the Chairs, a major selling point 
>behind tight charters is to make it easier for chairs to help the 
>working group distinguish between work that is in-scope and out of 
>scope.  Again, what examples do you have of a well-constructed 
>charter constraint causing more work for chairs?

It is not about well-constructed charters.  The charter of a 
particular working group was tightly scoped.  However, there were 
discussions about the scope.  Scope only works well when there is a 
cohesive group.  If the group is not cohesive there will likely be 
disagreement and that will cause more work for the chairs.

>And what process issues do you know of that happened?

I'll take this off-list.