Re: [apps-discuss] DMARC and the conflict of extensions vs. deployment

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <> Sat, 13 April 2013 23:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1DE21F8E9E for <>; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.535
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.535 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jOlz5E25lUKK for <>; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8C3B21F8B08 for <>; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t11so2872339wey.20 for <>; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1ZDGKaaHEBBR9Ee+oS0cPWQcQYXFLkOoPqwvnGfPfkQ=; b=MuXAymB+O/tvYdX8njax4kLB4duzFCfimf49lSRNsVCteRBWtVjtIEBjGtcMQissZT JZKabntj7t+S6zzCpDcTqfqw8p1Jc+Gnwa7EXpBDfkwNDyuarR/fV724odTS7xjf+qrD SzW4nGOGuP4hJZU4kV+4Bb5DDibqR5P9n4jhAoS6W4YZYVgd7mXM6YgVNTO20GxuJ2wj 6ZBSVWcbZdC+xLShuz/P7YJOkUZuBfce5Q+EI3jaI6aU9VZehH5EN4Qq0JTrgfDJWTL/ tSKRijy08N9VfOianZQ+MD13LN5TRYLo6d/+7KbzZ5Y6X3u5akfMDkDonZ0QYtr+YaPV qmvA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id w9mr1308378wij.32.1365895541968; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 16:25:41 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
To: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f502ee894565604da465653"
Cc: Dave Crocker <>, IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] DMARC and the conflict of extensions vs. deployment
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: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 23:25:44 -0000

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Paul Hoffman <> wrote:

> Having said that, I think both the current text and my proposal above have
> a thorny constitutional problem: if the WG recharters to change a problem
> in the base specification, the WG would be working on an protocol that is
> an RFC that is outside the IETF Stream. I suspect that that should only be
> done if the result is bringing the revised base spec into the IETF Stream
> as an Standards Track document. But I think that issue can be noted here
> (not in the charter) and only raised if the recharter actually happens.
I'm pretty sure the intent is to publish the current base draft through the
ISE, since it was developed outside the IETF, but if it changes (via
rechartering), move it to the IETF stream.  The latter can obsolete the
former if the timing warrants doing so.  Thus, if the working group is ever
actually cracking open the base draft, it's on the IETF stream.