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

Stephen Farrell <> Mon, 01 April 2013 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE5321F90F1 for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:24:10 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rRQE-lPMnrjZ for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:24:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0F4521F9039 for <>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871FDBE29; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 23:22:17 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J+s3pPY1rGZ5; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 23:22:14 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DCC6DBE25; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 23:22:13 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 23:22:13 +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
To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>
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: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:24:10 -0000

On 04/01/2013 11:16 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> We've already had this very conversation, so we're aware of the issue.  The
> text we have was an attempt to re-create the same constraints DKIM had,
> preferring no changes, but not completely proscribing it either.  It sounds
> like we have a little more text massaging to do to make it clear that's
> where were trying to go.

Right. If the outcome is charter text like we had with DKIM that'd
be fine. FWIW, the initial charter for DKIM said:

"Experimentation has resulted in Internet deployment of these
specifications. Although not encouraged, non-backwards-compatible
changes to these specifications will be acceptable if the DKIM working
group determines that the changes are required to meet the group's
technical objectives."

I don't know if that's something that'd work for dmarc but I
think it does hit the right note, and I think with DKIM that
worked fine. (But I'm biased of course;-)


> Thanks,
> -MSK
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Stephen Farrell
> <>wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm concerned about this charter text:
>> "The strong preference is for the working group to preserve existing
>> software and procedures. For changes likely to affect the installed
>> base, the working group will seek review and advice, beyond working
>> group participants, to include other developers and operators of
>> DMARC-based mechanisms. "
>> I don't know how the not-yet-formed WG can have a preference nor
>> how a formed-wg can seek advice "beyond the working group" with
>> our processes.
>> Both of those would seem like charter-show-stoppers to me (and
>> fairly reek of rubber-stamping to put it pejoratively).
>> We had to, and did, address similar issues with DKIM/DomainKeys
>> so I hope that a similar approach will also work here - its
>> fine for proponents of a technology to prefer no change but
>> its not fine to constrain an IETF WG to rule out changes, but
>> I reckon its actually not that hard to write down something
>> that works, as we eventually did in the DKIM case.
>> (I've not read the draft yet so this is just a comment on the
>> charter text, not on the meat of the proposal. I do think this
>> point deserves to be raised on apps-discuss given that its not
>> really dmarc-specific.)
>> Cheers,
>> S.
>> On 04/01/2013 06:25 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> At the IETF meeting in Atlanta, Tim Draegen presented a proposal for
>>> which is an email authentication and reporting layer atop SPF and DKIM.
>>> The externally-developed proposal is now in widespread deployment by a
>>> number of large-scale providers.  The group that developed it is seeking
>> to
>>> bring it to the IETF for further development and broad review, and
>>> development of operational guidance.
>>> A first draft of a charter can be found linked from
>>> There is a list available for discussing the technical
>>> contents of the work and also this draft charter.  Please follow up there
>>> with any charter contents so we don't innundate this list with that
>>> discussion.  To subscribe to that list:
>>> -MSK
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> apps-discuss mailing list