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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 02 April 2013 02:56 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 6498121E812C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:56:18 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 slRJfTcLYszC for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:56:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A389821E804A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 19:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 213BDBE33; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 03:55:52 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kQ1GFhpWJ2UT; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 03:55:50 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.8] (unknown [86.42.20.231]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B889BBE29; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 03:55:50 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <515A48B6.6080809@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 03:55:50 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
References: <CAL0qLwYc757fw_VhPMHDrgcCimNFak02brDRLAVTq+NR4w34pA@mail.gmail.com> <515A2858.2000907@stpeter.im> <515A35EE.4010503@dcrocker.net> <1981405.krhrID7K1t@scott-latitude-e6320> <515A3AC6.8020504@stpeter.im> <515A42EF.3010402@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <515A42EF.3010402@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
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 02:56:18 -0000

On 04/02/2013 03:31 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
> 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.

I think improvements that do replace current text have been
offered already (dkim or xmpp style text wrt maintaining
backwards compatibility) and deficiencies in the current text
have been pointed out (not clearly ceding change control)
that do motivate those improvements. Both suggested
improvements are also based on successful cases where
technologies have been brought into the IETF and one of
those (DKIM) is even closely related to dmarc.

Given that you seem to be asking for what's already been
provided, I'd say we must be close to done on this aspect:-)

S.

> 
> d/