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

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 13 May 2020 18:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A71D13A0764 for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 11:36:34 -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 YCTtcgVsX2vo for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 11:36:32 -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 B1FD13A065A for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 11:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k18so220649ion.0 for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 11:36:32 -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=RTM35q7u+uPsxPXQJ9gnciyKSPtgByCkSb9nbvr2zBE=; b=een6DcNb00R3oRRsdQQMyxPvhypW+ejww5gHgFtjF+1Fhpu/e5i8TaJAxT+D7BWS6d mNvAGQE2eKaEaR6JViU9AVYM0vZFshTz7tYh4s7JtK9+FUKVKm0FRgHHLaY/+JlF+z2L YlMAxwNfz24J4zMYtW5FVSL7nTUUz6w5tmjYltAYtviAVkBDpdNFebnx/Gtf0il09+uY 22MD9bjeS9P5XmbYrBxGMvjsHf6uxzp3RifooK12RWMitpqyaKOOXhsELzF4ho7baAyH DFzIR7heH/EMVtVPXwRj+t3rDj65+w8KR3VdCZgdjikwW3PRAqa3dTLcwL5oS//eCtMT Sabg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533P8SPlhGrlEStOPRJOeSLdlCxzzTxi6f1w9jSG1sSs7zoX4UFl OFrzhQ8f48AmqUxFXvxtqYSZIqXDyiyvjP4QLSptLq0p
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqVkAOVzJWJx97NHgDBzUtvkiAGQFCPET4fHdDNBlnmkIUvBxYxh2ttECoHOkq+86fLXENg/82RetsIWMdQ9I=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:1695:: with SMTP id s21mr580808iow.40.1589394991816; Wed, 13 May 2020 11:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 14:36:20 -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 18:36:36 -0000

> >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.

There's *some* overhead with pretty much anything that a committee has
to do, but the overhead of managing a liaison relationship that's
working well is quite low.  Yes, there's someone assigned to keep
track of me as M3AAWG liaison manager.  I hear from that IAB member
usually only when the assignee changes, because there isn't much more
to do: I try to send the IAB a routine report once a year, giving a
summary of what's been happening.  If something needs to be raised, I
send the IAB a report about that when it comes up, and I think that
happened once or twice -- not because of a liaison problem, but
because there was a topic that I thought they should be aware of.  And
a couple of times since 2009 the assignee has talked with me about
whether the liaison relationship is still useful, and we decided,
after a chat, that it was.

It's my goal as liaison manager to make sure that the overhead is as
low as I can make it, and that both organizations see some benefit
from the relationship.

> 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.

Indeed, and I certainly agree with both of those statements.