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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Fri, 12 April 2013 21:56 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.com>
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 AC85A21F8F5C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 0Y5c7OuKkg2b for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:56:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (mailout02.controlledmail.com [72.81.252.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D6921F8F58 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout02.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E85320E40D2; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:56:04 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2007-00; t=1365803764; bh=U46Dw7kyyPkqoM7cUgqtaeJ06p7sgfUqHe3Oc2GjKAc=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=o8P6gs4d0ZtoaWpU+qI3mfcMS19Cef9r/Wd5VnZe1w8+m6pP9pssK6z0kVwAlmb8D usvwd7ewwsao7DAsm/Y8q+Uvdrc7I7IpBTFzn6ZuN+Cp0dMAKQ5G8z8pCAVSsydwFk if66zBi2oXkCx+c+ww0monWWSYJpngI4dw9Ud1Fw=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout02.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 10AD320E40B0; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:56:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:56 -0400
Message-ID: <6600677.x1Szm294G3@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.5 (Linux/3.5.0-27-generic; KDE/4.9.5; i686; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwbcH-yOj0MxfGghQZPwGMt5mRBY5U5zBxdXc1oX6SogHA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbcH-yOj0MxfGghQZPwGMt5mRBY5U5zBxdXc1oX6SogHA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised 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: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 21:56:05 -0000

On Friday, April 12, 2013 12:10:31 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Hello again,
> 
> After discussion with some IESG members and the DMARC community, a revised
> charter has now been posted for consideration:
> 
> http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/DMARC
> 
> Thanks to everyone who provided constructive help in getting this reformed
> into a palatable charter.  Please feel free to offer more comments; if it
> seems non-upsetting, we'd like to ask the ADs to put it on a future
> telechat.

"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.

At some point, if DMARC is going to be an IETF standard, dmarc.org is going to 
have to let go of change control.  I think this revision goes in the opposite 
direction.

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.

By removing the work from the working group entirely, I think this is the 
wrong direction to go in.

Scott K