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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Thu, 18 April 2013 20:50 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA0B521F912C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7jgE9g8qdlsN for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:50:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E111121F90D5 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:50:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3750320E40D4; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:50:51 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1366318251; bh=5HFVq7irViQU82RtYQjZ2LyvvL7gaiypryuiQsyd9TU=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=S88Y427aoeXavzc16NfjivleY9uewxl+Dekp5Q3jg6D4xdH98f4kBHBxjwi6I8DWA Az8mbgPU5WBhWOsWeQmrhZ3/vuWMw/yzclfqBkRX9kmUPdZXb0FBGSQ9vKLL7cm/R5 TuqeyrfUgTH1nd+Tdr4puUw+k+ePhPxOYdhcFnbA=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CBD020E4090; Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:50:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:50:50 -0400
Message-ID: <5158537.VifRbVZBdl@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.5.0-27-generic; KDE/4.9.5; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <51705BBD.3070907@gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbcH-yOj0MxfGghQZPwGMt5mRBY5U5zBxdXc1oX6SogHA@mail.gmail.com> <4299196.YodGhlyJ6a@scott-latitude-e6320> <51705BBD.3070907@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group charter proposal
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 20:50:55 -0000

On Thursday, April 18, 2013 02:46:53 PM J. Trent Adams wrote:
> Scott -
> 
> On 4/18/13 12:53 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 18, 2013 09:12:19 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> 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.
> >> 
> >> Scott,
> >> 
> >> 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
> >> happening.
> > 
> > OK.  It seemed to me that in your analogy is was more like A saying "How
> > about X" over and over.
> > 
> > Since you are a part of the DMARC development community, do you have a
> > sense of if that group is willing to support a working group charter that
> > allows for technical changes to be made in the protocol in the event
> > significant technical issues are discovered?
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, I think that the proposed charter makes provision
> for exactly that happening. If enough data points are gathered through
> the work of the group, it can decide to re-charter and crack open the
> spec itself. We'll just want to be sure that it's a data-driven decision
> rather than something more theoretical.
> 
> Does that hit close to what you're looking to achieve?

No.  The latest draft excludes such work from consideration without 
rechartering.  It pretty much the opposite of what I was looking to achieve.

Unless working on the base draft is part of the work of the working group, it 
won't happen.  Personally, I'm far more interested in the base spec than any 
extensions proposed so far.  I doubt I'd devote much time to the working group 
if chartered based on the current draft.

Scott K