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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 16 April 2013 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 E8ED821F93E2 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 wA8kcpJgZNZZ for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 946C821F93E1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 954A3BE62; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:34:45 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YkK1rj24SSzt; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:34:44 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.4] (unknown [86.44.70.2]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFF20BE61; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:34:44 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <516C9CA4.5020700@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:34:44 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <CAL0qLwbcH-yOj0MxfGghQZPwGMt5mRBY5U5zBxdXc1oX6SogHA@mail.gmail.com> <0d7d06e2-a54b-45ec-a33f-dbfa2b20bc0e@email.android.com> <5169438B.3010400@dcrocker.net> <3121454.RJqk1xG6s9@scott-latitude-e6320> <516C9824.6040503@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <516C9824.6040503@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
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: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:35:09 -0000

On 04/16/2013 01:15 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
>>> Well, that's what we originally submitted for chartering, but at
>>> least one AD didn't like it.
>>
>> Right, but the direction that the AD didn't like it was that the
>> previous proposal constrained the working group too much.
> 
> He didn't seem to want any meaningful constraint.  While he, you, or
> whoever might feel that's fine, the folks currently holding the spec
> need more assurance of stability for the specification than that, given
> how recent the investment in it has been.

I guess I'm the "he" above.

I've no idea what Dave means by "meaningful constraint." (That may
be just down to misinterpretations though. Hard to tell.)

I continue to argue for the same handling that the IETF used
for DKIM and XMPP. That seems to have worked well twice. I'm
quite surprised the DMARC group seem so much more concerned
about stupid changes than either the XMPP or DKIM folk, esp
since there seems to be quite an overlap between the DKIM
and DMARC groups. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong about
that overlap; its quite possible.)

I had a real problem with the previous proposed charter. I'm
not sure yet if I do with this one (while still preferring
doing what we did with DKIM/XMPP.) In order to know if I've a
problem with this one, I think I need to read the "base" spec
(which I've yet to do) because the current proposal seems to
be to have the ISE and chartering processes run in parallel
(which I find very odd). I suspect its very likely I will have
a problem with that, unless the ISE RFC has issued before the
IETF WG chartering process starts. (Only then can IETF folk
decide if they're ok with a new WG, since only then will the
ISE RFC text be final; but there is a chance that the "base"
spec is so good that its obvious, so I will read it first.)

And just in case that previous paragraph was confusing:

I continue to argue for the same handling that the IETF used
for DKIM and XMPP:-)

S.