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

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Tue, 02 April 2013 00:37 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 56DBC21F8F31 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:37:44 -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 hNSkfWkvb9-m for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stpeter.im (mailhost.stpeter.im [207.210.219.225]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65A4B21F844F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (unknown [71.237.13.154]) (Authenticated sender: stpeter) by stpeter.im (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8965E40D3A; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 18:47:22 -0600 (MDT)
Message-ID: <515A2858.2000907@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:37:44 -0600
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <CAL0qLwYc757fw_VhPMHDrgcCimNFak02brDRLAVTq+NR4w34pA@mail.gmail.com> <5159D7A4.4000701@cs.tcd.ie> <CAL0qLwa0JtksC7iE_noz_ZC1L-NQU1EyH1X=dcrkPL-4UWJ-yA@mail.gmail.com> <515A0895.2090209@cs.tcd.ie>
In-Reply-To: <515A0895.2090209@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] 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, 02 Apr 2013 00:37:44 -0000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 4/1/13 4:22 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04/01/2013 11:16 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>> 
>> We've already had this very conversation, so we're aware of the
>> issue.  The text we have was an attempt to re-create the same
>> constraints DKIM had, preferring no changes, but not completely
>> proscribing it either.  It sounds like we have a little more text
>> massaging to do to make it clear that's where were trying to go.
> 
> Right. If the outcome is charter text like we had with DKIM that'd 
> be fine. FWIW, the initial charter for DKIM said:
> 
> "Experimentation has resulted in Internet deployment of these 
> specifications. Although not encouraged, non-backwards-compatible 
> changes to these specifications will be acceptable if the DKIM
> working group determines that the changes are required to meet the
> group's technical objectives."
> 
> I don't know if that's something that'd work for dmarc but I think
> it does hit the right note, and I think with DKIM that worked fine.
> (But I'm biased of course;-)

FWIW, the original XMPP WG (2002) had the following text in its
charter regarding backward compatibility with the existing
implementations and deployments of the Jabber protocols...

   Although not encouraged, non-backwards-compatible changes to the
   basis specifications will be acceptable if the working group
   determines that the changes are required to meet the group's
   technical objectives and the group clearly documents the reasons for
   making them.

Peter

- -- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=M72/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----