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 17:56:00 -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
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Dave Crocker
- [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group charte… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… J. Trent Adams
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Scott Kitterman
- [apps-discuss] DMARC and the conflict of extensio… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] DMARC and the conflict of exte… Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] DMARC and the conflict of exte… Paul Hoffman
- Re: [apps-discuss] DMARC and the conflict of exte… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [apps-discuss] DMARC and the conflict of exte… MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… t.petch
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… J. Trent Adams
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… J. Trent Adams
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Scott Kitterman
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Dave Crocker
- Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group ch… Scott Kitterman