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

Stephen Farrell <> Tue, 02 April 2013 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6324111E8118 for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SNxOfcP3Fupv for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:21:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99FE911E80E2 for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:21:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F46BE33; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:20:54 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K3JgxFtkYHXB; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:20:53 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55EDBBE2F; Tue, 2 Apr 2013 01:20:53 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:20:52 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130308 Thunderbird/17.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 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

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

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

If 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.


> d/