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

Stephen Farrell <> Mon, 01 April 2013 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75F621E809D for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:53:49 -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 R8qUWgsApbIT for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E2821E8051 for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:53:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A028EBE4C; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:53:26 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Np5ag-JOhGJ; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:53:24 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 627EEBE35; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:53:24 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:53:24 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <>
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: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:53:49 -0000

FWIW, I'm concerned about this charter text:

"The strong preference is for the working group to preserve existing
software and procedures. For changes likely to affect the installed
base, the working group will seek review and advice, beyond working
group participants, to include other developers and operators of
DMARC-based mechanisms. "

I don't know how the not-yet-formed WG can have a preference nor
how a formed-wg can seek advice "beyond the working group" with
our processes.

Both of those would seem like charter-show-stoppers to me (and
fairly reek of rubber-stamping to put it pejoratively).

We had to, and did, address similar issues with DKIM/DomainKeys
so I hope that a similar approach will also work here - its
fine for proponents of a technology to prefer no change but
its not fine to constrain an IETF WG to rule out changes, but
I reckon its actually not that hard to write down something
that works, as we eventually did in the DKIM case.

(I've not read the draft yet so this is just a comment on the
charter text, not on the meat of the proposal. I do think this
point deserves to be raised on apps-discuss given that its not
really dmarc-specific.)


On 04/01/2013 06:25 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> At the IETF meeting in Atlanta, Tim Draegen presented a proposal for DMARC,
> which is an email authentication and reporting layer atop SPF and DKIM.
> The externally-developed proposal is now in widespread deployment by a
> number of large-scale providers.  The group that developed it is seeking to
> bring it to the IETF for further development and broad review, and
> development of operational guidance.
> A first draft of a charter can be found linked from
> There is a list available for discussing the technical
> contents of the work and also this draft charter.  Please follow up there
> with any charter contents so we don't innundate this list with that
> discussion.  To subscribe to that list:
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list