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

Dave Crocker <> Thu, 18 April 2013 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A443021F90FD for <>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WeuC07I5vDtP for <>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9487621F90F4 for <>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3IGCNMw015332 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:12:24 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:12:19 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Kitterman <>
References: <> <15015065.dv5A4A6JuL@scott-latitude-e6320> <> <29070418.Ips48RWf4b@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <29070418.Ips48RWf4b@scott-latitude-e6320>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised 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: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:12:25 -0000

On 4/16/2013 6:23 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 16, 2013 08:37:10 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
>> On 4/15/2013 8:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> 1.  How about this?
>>> 2.  Not quite, here are some alternatives we could discuss.
>>> 1.  I quit.
>>> that's hardly a negotiation.
>> 1. The exchange was more elaborate than that,
>> 2. The lockout imagine is striking and entirely inapplicable, since
>> there is no pre-existing relationship, nevermind an employer/employee one.
> Right.  It's an analogy and like all analogy is imperfect.


An analogy is supposed to demonstrate core properties that match the 
situation.  Similarly:

> Also imperfect, but perhaps less orthogonal might be the analogy of the kid
> that shows up at the playground with a cool new toy and stomps off and goes
> home when the other kids won't play with the toy precisely according to his
> rules.

entirely misses the point of what is currently happening.

The current exchange has had more of the flavor of:

    A:    How about X.
    B&C:  That's unacceptable, so do alternatives Y or Z.
    A:    Here are the reasons those alternatives don't match the
          current situation and here are the distinctive characteristics
          of the current situation.
    B&C:  Do Y or Z
    {rinse repeat}
    A:    OK, how about A.
    B&C:  Do Y or Z

After some iterations in this model, it become clear that the 
negotiation isn't a negotiation.

Until you and Stephen engage in discussing the substance of the 
responses you've been getting, there isn't a meaningful discussion 


  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking