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

Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> Tue, 02 April 2013 02:31 UTC

Return-Path: <dhc@dcrocker.net>
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 DB9D921F8EBE for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 lHUs1pakfsmK for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4228F21F8EBD for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r322VCVl017428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:31:13 -0700
Message-ID: <515A42EF.3010402@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:31:11 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <CAL0qLwYc757fw_VhPMHDrgcCimNFak02brDRLAVTq+NR4w34pA@mail.gmail.com> <515A2858.2000907@stpeter.im> <515A35EE.4010503@dcrocker.net> <1981405.krhrID7K1t@scott-latitude-e6320> <515A3AC6.8020504@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <515A3AC6.8020504@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: 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
Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
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 02:31:14 -0000

On 4/1/2013 6:56 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> A big +1 to that. It's not a cure-all, but it sure helps to keep a
> working group from going astray.


so does a well-written set of constraints in the charter.  that's why 
they are commonly provided.

the current text was written with quite a bit of thought; at this point 
i've no idea how many working group charters i've/we've written, but a 
fair number have been based on importing existing technology. (i didn't 
write the charter, but i happened to be the area director with oversight 
for initially bringing nfs into the ietf.)

no doubt the current draft needs improving.  so please offer 
improvements rather than replacements or explain the inherent 
deficiencies in the current text.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net