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

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Mon, 01 April 2013 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.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 E9A0F21F9021 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:16:17 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 XmO+4yIm3avS for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x229.google.com (mail-we0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70CF521E80B1 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:16:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id x43so2191416wey.28 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CXNg7KHHhv6eIOtbtTswVES+h64BOp9xEqIqWdbu2gQ=; b=Bw4+yNhX9mMOpwGLNLgw4SzVtu6Mwnmcgi5nh5FKxg9nH5PIHdhQHRt0BDBPiMhP2A +by2yiehm6m/Ey1tUNz5QVcwiFvLAZmOfL29qNBFbVQMFdRGDyjBHbA9gFBpr0kLCCHs M6Du1g4G64CvnQ/8/7qtYyf7WJJVd9kup4pu6X/1hx0LMEWr8o7YzMz6RHAn/Apfps9h wrVTZXuHle/NmqxcpI+yQXd8q9Pf3D16rODjWn7acZ7NxVFf6M2hsA+su+epTOuT7box +54NUZHnjsHpR9aXNYCaQvyHEeFSPKmhD+BHXGlxqPs5cfh0Si96GmrI7RdkRUThqr1I 8vpA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.94.39 with SMTP id cz7mr12201332wib.21.1364854570763; Mon, 01 Apr 2013 15:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.13.71 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:16:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5159D7A4.4000701@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <CAL0qLwYc757fw_VhPMHDrgcCimNFak02brDRLAVTq+NR4w34pA@mail.gmail.com> <5159D7A4.4000701@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 15:16:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwa0JtksC7iE_noz_ZC1L-NQU1EyH1X=dcrkPL-4UWJ-yA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04426de6dc4e6404d953f763
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: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 22:16:21 -0000

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.

Thanks,
-MSK


On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>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
> DMARC,
> > 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
> > http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki.
> >
> > There is a dmarc@ietf.org 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:
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
> >
> > -MSK
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > apps-discuss mailing list
> > apps-discuss@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
> >
>