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

"J. Trent Adams" <> Sat, 13 April 2013 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E0821F8E99 for <>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.048
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NBKCezsZAcDp for <>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::231]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739D621F8D4E for <>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 16so764681obc.22 for <>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SKI7pyqq1dc4Nt2jvfWGj4FaMwG++uo2pBKMZlgpG98=; b=xmzi0o5gpZIA449yVTuXByCop/dHGwX79FTbU3svf2Y6+Xz4rXT53eVV3wYzIOuQF7 OkGpJYvDskx2Aen3z1uae3qntJh7Qgf+Vp+xkJoC4HVslvYP6pnUDbRHFeA3A3Cgbcep BLaj8KUFBcJnQSVi25BdZ/7hfdhZvEq1MUI+TPDgJHGaPFjx3kRMmWkwbjaqB2FR2sfO A5B6wCqNo/Fj1OHFHAyhbnZE1AVeco2iDFaPt+PivmPLHyQakGrcoRiqmdFyXqw2LxlE vREDxXeg/0cnEk56/mzDHzA9IDWbA+LpOFmchhZqrYKuaaiUTcz2DnoedVJpYFba+DeM 8ceQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id n10mr4659780oew.63.1365815521901; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jtrentadams-isoc.local ( []) by with ESMTPS id dv8sm1933165obb.5.2013. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 12 Apr 2013 18:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 19:12:00 -0600
From: "J. Trent Adams" <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <6600677.x1Szm294G3@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <6600677.x1Szm294G3@scott-latitude-e6320>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised 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: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 01:12:03 -0000

To speak in favor of the newly revised charter, I believe that it is a
reasonable balance when considering the context. Specifically, a lot of
organizations already see real value in the current version of the base

That's not to say it can't be improved, but the stability of the version
at this stage of deployment is an important factor. It will be through
continued wide-spread adoption and feedback on real-world utility that
will help suggest improvements to the group.

The proposed charter does a good job of taking a pragmatic, lessons
learned type of approach. It considers the experience that only comes
from "running code", capturing what works (and documenting it), all the
while cataloging ways it can be improved. There is also lot of room for
work on important, non-disruptive extensions (some ideas for which are
included, while others will undoubtedly arise).

Then, once a reasonable amount of due diligence is performed by the
broader community, the group will have the data it needs to determine if
the base specification itself should be improved. If so, the group can
re-charter with that work in scope and the specification will be in it's
capable hands.

Basically, it seems to me that this is a very healthy approach in which
I look forward to participating.


On 4/12/13 3:56 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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:
>> 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, 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
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list

J. Trent Adams