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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 02 April 2013 00:21 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 6324111E8118 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:21:18 -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=[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 SNxOfcP3Fupv for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FE911E80E2 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F46BE33; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:20:54 +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 K3JgxFtkYHXB; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:20:53 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.8] (unknown [86.42.20.231]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55EDBBE2F; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:20:53 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <515A2464.8090401@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:20:52 +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> <5159D7A4.4000701@cs.tcd.ie> <CAL0qLwa0JtksC7iE_noz_ZC1L-NQU1EyH1X=dcrkPL-4UWJ-yA@mail.gmail.com> <515A0895.2090209@cs.tcd.ie> <515A1581.9030402@dcrocker.net>
In-Reply-To: <515A1581.9030402@dcrocker.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <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 00:21:18 -0000

Hi Dave,

On 04/02/2013 12:17 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> DKIM had far less installed base on large operational services than
> DMARC now has.

Happy to hear that but I don't think it impacts on the
points below. (Its news to me btw, but then its not my area
so that's not surprising.)

And to be clear: I do welcome folks bringing work to the
IETF, esp. where it is or will be widely deployed.

> As for not knowing how to consult outside the working group, surely you
> jest.  We do it all the time.

Not with such vaguely characterised "others" and nor with
giving 'em anti-change-control that I can recall. Feel free
to point me at examples that do those things. If the text
isn't meant to severely constrain IETF change-control then
it needs a re-write 'cause it reads to me like that's the
intent.

If the "others" are actually well-known and are really
dmarc.org members then saying that would seem to be
useful to start with.

But in any case since that dmarc.org group apparently want
to cede change control then I think DKIM-like charter text
is really what'd work best.

If dmarc.org really don't want to cede change control then
the ISE route would seen more appropriate than an IETF WG.

> As for:
>> I don't know how the not-yet-formed WG can have a preference
> 
> I don't know what you mean.

WG-doesn't-exist-yet => WG-can't-have-opinion. That ought be
trivial to fix, but is indicative of a possibly problematic
conflation of the set of folks who drafted this text and the
set of folks that might participate in a future IETF WG, which
will include people who've never seen this draft for example.

S.

> 
> 
> d/