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

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 13 May 2020 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888F73A0BA8 for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 10:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24K_CMRf3F56 for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 10:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2170D3A0B9C for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 10:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id e18so5933010iog.9 for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 10:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=STduQhQGtJw6SmNo1jColfOlk09e6nedRkvDpB/NXmk=; b=uHj5lego0OVs1S7mgx1XIvvsJs/WlAXLIigL6a0WxrXa+CyDgSAW50eckWqTLW6Ylx OpL9uG3DemwlFV0ofuGEqt34z+vHekRDwDMoN8lXN20gJ+mJrety13mYgY0hT3DLX173 tcAcR7N8NnlCS7tm6TZ33r9fahfzQFv5yBwLgs+9+DtznFdx4Av8+rob8PT/143gLAEY ZAj9/UqPvqUqdf5B2cKJTifD2bZL0pGuhelHUH76O5jfU50LgQvTrKFdX7L0aNT814Gp OiBqZGA+AsywrHnXA6VQiiYeqQJScC1bggs87vSgKR+g+aToYCekCSmARtVAXCdk/trZ 6dgQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532B9W5HPbQdzzpI0lhn3hwelXWudqM3ZHsff8VYq/Cu6+pHT480 I7ktlvsFfHty3LgycLWsroLKNSBCkNfaVGHG5F2jTPqGKto=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwjZ6ntwQa/41cDq1vde62pihluQSyf3JY+y20mtAScpoy24jXmQZwo/ZCbqK4ygaA3G9qMHGbgYm+jr89970g=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:582:: with SMTP id v2mr174819iox.206.1589389338082; Wed, 13 May 2020 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 13:02:06 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: S Moonesamy <>
Cc: IAB <>,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [arch-d] Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-06-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: open discussion forum for long/wide-range architectural issues <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 17:02:21 -0000

> >Not all inter-organization activity happens with liaison statements,
> >and it's best when it doesn't happen that way: the most effective way
> >for organizations to work together is through cross-participation.  In
> >the case of M3AAWG, there are quite a few IETF participants who are
> >also active M3AAWG participants, so there's a good flow of work and
> >information back and forth, and that's healthy for both IETF and
> >M3AAWG.  My role as the IETF liaison to M3AAWG has included helping
> >M3AAWG participants come over to the IETF to participate, to make sure
> >M3AAWG is aware of work in the IETF that's relevant to them, and to
> >make sure that the IETF -- the IESG, the IAB, and the appropriate
> >working groups -- is aware of things going on in M3AAWG.  That has
> >worked well, and some work in the former SPFBIS working group and the
> >current DMARC and UTA working groups has originated in M3AAWG and been
> >brought over.
> I don't recall seeing any information flowing towards the IETF.  I
> did not bother much about that until I read a recent comment, which
> is unrelated to DMARC.  The liaison relationship isn't for the
> benefit of the IAB or IESG only as the liaisons are described as
> representing the IETF (please see my exchange with Stephen about that).

- The SPFBIS working group (which you chaired) *started* because of
interest within M3AAWG, which was brought to the IETF as a work
- 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.

> My concern is that there is very little information about what the
> liaisons representing the IETF are doing.  I don't recall anyone
> asking questions about that unless the practice is to keep those
> discussions behind closed doors.  I requested a summary of the
> discussions which led to the proposed virtual interim.

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.

> There is also: "In setting up the relationship, the IAB expects that
> there will be a mutual exchange of views and discussion of the best
> approach for undertaking new standardization work items."  Does
> M3AAWG has any concern about the standardization work being done in
> the IETF DMARC Working Group?

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

> When was the liaison relationship with M3AAWG set up?


> Was there any communication "representing the IETF" since then?

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

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.

> >No; it's an RFC, published in the Independent Stream, but not an IETF
> >publication.  But (1) few people really understand that distinction,
> >and (2) what you're pointing to is a press release from a private
> >company for marketing purposes, and its "spin" shouldn't surprise
> >anyone.  Again, what do you think the IETF's concern here is?
> I gather that nobody will raise any objection if someone else was to
> list himself/herself as IETF and add some marketing comment saying
> that the IETF published a "NewIP" specification.

This is the IETF: *someone* will raise an object to pretty much
anything.  But we don't control press releases or marketing statements
that companies might make.  We can always let people or companies know
that what they said isn't actually correct.  If you care enough, you
could always ask the IETF Trust if they think the statement you cited
infringes on any of the IETF's assets.  Apart from that, I'm not sure
what you want the IETF to do about it.