Re: [arch-d] Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-06-11

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 13 May 2020 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: architecture-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABDF3A011F; Wed, 13 May 2020 11:01:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H39HAnjFzH32; Wed, 13 May 2020 11:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AEA63A00E2; Wed, 13 May 2020 11:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.116.121.210]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 04DHhNeP014717 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 May 2020 10:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1589391819; x=1589478219; i=@elandsys.com; bh=Q1hwzDmThbre7sx7i4330omqKcXSEu6BrbETWHNcDSg=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=d7qwRqLfdbnC99C166slqH3Ek2rO5KCXP6muPqvRfM0YnM+iq7ORBQcl5ZsYWKS/r J/+OKLr7CHIh/qIzMNOUTxj+/2+rdhHFVwwm9TJ1ixhvDFW3NmBj1qgAdSdhTBYQPl mOggVsq8dviDVt1YfRjXr9VBKQKy/YrlBv9k6hVs=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20200513101502.0b0c7c90@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 10:42:48 -0700
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, iab@iab.org, architecture-discuss@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJKG7+g7u4p92axbZx4AxhwZgNfgfeHhE708EVpLs+iJjQ@mail.g mail.com>
References: <158920530782.23655.6622928751672901506@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200512152625.124c1588@elandnews.com> <d798d383-9bab-50f8-b6ee-dabb9cc37c2a@cs.tcd.ie> <6.2.5.6.2.20200512162358.0b239160@elandnews.com> <4548adba-834c-bfdd-36af-66b367408df8@cs.tcd.ie> <6.2.5.6.2.20200512191150.0bafa9a0@elandnews.com> <9161f68e-f51b-f97b-fc2b-372d24404209@cs.tcd.ie> <CAL0qLwZQxM+eDeZ+zFw3Gny7sy=jXi-1aUvE1B2RuO=M5CP_Sw@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200512232644.0d9328c8@elandnews.com> <CALaySJKs9oLXBN_UVq=Mn5ZefvrSgPyrV1J=1NMA0=YVDRnJVA@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20200513081326.0ababe28@elandnews.com> <CALaySJKG7+g7u4p92axbZx4AxhwZgNfgfeHhE708EVpLs+iJjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/Ut6l5eIhPGuPV_Lu20fFWlHBnzI>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-06-11
X-BeenThere: architecture-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <architecture-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/architecture-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:architecture-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss>, <mailto:architecture-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 18:01:19 -0000

Hi Barry,
At 10:02 AM 13-05-2020, Barry Leiba wrote:
>- The SPFBIS working group (which you chaired) *started* because of
>interest within M3AAWG, which was brought to the IETF as a work
>proposal.
>- The DMARC working group was created because of work on DMARC that
>was started by M3AAWG members.
>- The ARC experimental protocol that was developed in the DMARC
>working group was initially proposed y M3AAWG members.
>- The SMTP MTA STS work in the UTA working group was proposed by 
>M3AAWG members.
>
>Those are some things that come to mind.  There is flow in both
>directions, and I think it's a healthy relationship.  Though,
>repeating: it isn't happening by formal liaison statements, but
>instead by joint participation that's, in part, facilitated by me and
>by others who participate in both organizations.  I believe that's
>working as it should.

I'll comment below instead of focusing on the above.

>If you want details about why DMARC is having a virtual interim
>meeting, you should ask that on the DMARC list, not here.  I'm sure
>the DMARC chairs will be happy to answer.  In any case, the decision
>by the DMARC chairs to schedule a virtual interim meeting has nothing
>to do with liaisons.

Ok.

>I don't know what you're asking when you say "any concern".  If you
>mean, "Does M3AAWG care about what's happening in the IETF (and DMARC
>in particular)?", well, yes, it absolutely does.  And M3AAWG members
>are participating in the DMARC working group (and other working
>groups).  If you mean, according to the more usual meaning of
>"concern", "Is M3AAWG worried about what's happening here?", no, not
>that I'm aware of.  As I said, there's a lot of cross-participation
>(and I don't mean "cross" in the "angry" sense) and it's a healthy
>relationship.

Ok.

>I have often given presentations at M3AAWG about what's happening in
>the IETF that I think they would be interested in.  I often encourage
>people in M3AAWG, both "on mic" and in side conversations, to
>participate actively in relevant IETF working groups.  I often answer
>questions about the IETF -- what it's doing, how it works, how people
>can be part of it -- at M3AAWG, again, both on mic and in side
>conversations.

Ok.

>In doing that, yes, I think I'm representing the IETF.  It's never in
>the sense that "I'm speaking for the IETF, and the IETF says..."  That
>*would* be what formal liaison statements are for, and we have never
>done a formal liaison statement to or from M3AAWG.

If I understood the liaison programme correctly, there is some 
overhead on the IAB side as it has to assign one of its members to 
keep an eye on what is going on.  Is it useful to have a liaison 
relationship when there aren't any concerns or a need for formal 
representation?  That is the question which, in my opinion, is useful 
for the IAB to think about.

>This is the IETF: *someone* will raise an object to pretty much
>anything.  But we don't control press releases or marketing statements

As an off-topic comment, I would say that part of being open is also 
about being open to objections.  When that does not work well, people 
take their work elsewhere.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy