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

Dave Crocker <> Sat, 13 April 2013 02:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113BA21F8EE6 for <>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:20:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.539
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gpjUUKdc6uVI for <>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A57221F8E72 for <>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3D2KnVq014704 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:20:50 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:20:42 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Scott Kitterman <>
References: <> <6600677.x1Szm294G3@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <6600677.x1Szm294G3@scott-latitude-e6320>
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 ( []); Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:20:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised 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: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 02:20:51 -0000


Would that these processes were more smooth. However...

On 4/12/2013 2:56 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> "The initial charter for this working group does not include revising the base
> specification"
> I don't think removing the work on the base specification from the charter
> really addresses the concern that the previous draft charter over constrained
> work on the base charter.  "You have to recharter" to make a change seems very
> constraining.

To charter a working group that will make changes to a specification, 
there first must be a sense of the kinds of changes that are needed and 
desired by the folks who will develop and deploy the changes.

Before bringing the spec to the IETF venue, we looked quite hard amongst 
the current DMARC community for a meaningful, near-term work-list to 
attempt on the base spec, and failed to develop one.

So Scott, what changes to the DMARC base spec are you seeking and why 
and who wants them and how do we know this?

> There were a number of suggestions based on DKIM and other WG charters that
> seemed to me like a good basis for balancing the concerns of existing
> implementers with the idea of allowing an IETF working group to actually do
> work.

The issue is not whether random, thoughtful folk can imagine a range of 
changes to make.  The question is what is actually needed and by whom 
and what the basis for believing this is.

Start by considering that there is a recent installed base, which means 
that the folks currently deploying DMARC, to cover roughly 60% of the 
world's mailboxes, would like to recover their initial investment before 
making more changes.  Then consider that they haven't yet registered 
requests for changes or enhancements.  Then please explain the basis for 
changing to make more changes now?

  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking