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

Barry Leiba <> Fri, 05 April 2013 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1EF221F98AD for <>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.022
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.044, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NujGeP1xSeoW for <>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BE6521F98A4 for <>; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id ek20so3753751lab.16 for <>; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=lLKKGxIdh4szfFqfO3tAosPuITWD1mcqGFCdKLzylmA=; b=M/IZp7fg9+43wKC/bixDsPGgWotTLJrrNjtpeIkVgX4+o8vWWIkzpVgC0fLmpBoIpG nH9GmW3elGsNoUwdzvYt+TnYjCA5yaB0qBhsWe9+rh1+bu6K36MLIKF+Q94OFK/tzZm3 VD8GlPPzuGsuZ05gaMKwqe0Y7iytgNlLaaAeSkIGx6zAtlOIKnllBa9XrAJqrPDDH4u2 MMJHCGrrYhDjWgxmpOgmELvpaTBDQrLGJBC0lDTfhvWfaNZEuoveCkDJyAiLbGwWkomj xeqpYB30aV8vJSZfOV5QSVMhHEYIAXKx++qfZX5Yvl9QAjuIuFXI8tHNxV+FYoit2VXo +89g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id e10mr6760965lba.46.1365185787855; Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 5 Apr 2013 11:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:16:27 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: pp-CsLmSCIk1ID96I-ZBWdJB6Jk
Message-ID: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
To: Dave Crocker <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] DMARC working group charter proposal
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: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 18:16:29 -0000

>> I strongly suggest changing that sentence so that it gives a more
>> workable characterization of what's out of scope.
> please suggest specific text that you feel would better do the job here.

I gave the parameters and thought you'd prefer to do the text.  But
I'm happy to propose some:

The working group will capture feedback about the existing DMARC
specification, and provide it for any future revision effort. However
discussion, debate and resolution of issues that target revision of
the specification are out of scope for this working group.

My first preference would be to remove that paragraph entirely; I
think the rest of the charter lays out the guidelines sufficiently.

If you really want to keep it, I think this will address my concerns:

The working group will capture feedback about possible extensions to
the DMARC specification, and provide it for any future effort.  Such
extensions and accommodation of additional use cases are out of scope
for this working group.