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

Barry Leiba <> Wed, 13 May 2020 14:08 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1075E3A0980 for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 07:08:39 -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 JUMXNm9RhVN3 for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 07:08:37 -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 59BDC3A0976 for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 07:08:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b71so9196012ilg.8 for <>; Wed, 13 May 2020 07:08:08 -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=cFOF1g6aCnzB1cYYOsZR6SnnbcGpERDiAUP3ZlNxWhk=; b=IjQP4fm8vdjaFw1PCEUiu8Fwbw9nBwDy3PtqwxiOA/x979iTAKqUpl4XFH2cBrIVka DPG55KRfWzT6BQ0DUa3KmjkUaAnnVkhVWviyaDNLG2APMQXfanQDZEA+hzeQsugJnKMM Q77cCT/bd3Bl/JOr/VxHBoO8iHqZaLyKHrh+ACRd6AJ16EyNIwxE0OKvsUQMZNcyWRzJ a+ASmx2eBK9fYSFQTRCQnx4ffGo9LBtO606MgNOQavzayQbgyThUNTHRQEYSkzm6SmKb cwgRBDX7aYVi9xcbV8imVm1rk1dPcVxyOmX0PYKWvexfTQ7Jv32mSMsQGGvCEqhluK28 aHpQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYG9fzwHwrrgl0337nRiUZK7xg69trMW+zGmp84VIMuuIzkc+V9 uNLYK33HIAC0Bjp2ohxhiipywUKfofnr/4ZB0og=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypLeXnU1mgBlb0CvbetFXI2MBmOreskt3YOAcQ+U6lV+750xc2arQsviDhMaiUGnY5GUV4nrUiByE/fhzaTan7M=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:106d:: with SMTP id q13mr23249116ilj.107.1589378887173; Wed, 13 May 2020 07:08:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Barry Leiba <>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 10:07:56 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: S Moonesamy <>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <>,
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 14:08:39 -0000

(Removing IAB from the distribution.)

> >The meeting is being scheduled and operated as a typical WG interim
> >meeting, under IETF IPR rules and so forth, scheduled adjacent to a
> >M3AAWG session on the same topic.  The proximity is meant to
> >encourage participation in our forum by their members who are
> >typically fairly shy about doing so.

Adding to that:
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.

This is also not the first time that IETF working groups have had
joint meetings with other organizations -- more accurately, IETF
sessions where other organizations' members are explicitly invited to
join: these meetings are always held under IETF Note Well and are open
to all participants.  My experience with such meetings is that the
IETF working groups have benefited from targeting participation of the
other organizations' members.

I'm not sure, SM, what your apparent skepticism or concern is about
this.  Perhaps you can be clearer about why you're pushing on it.

> I read
> I could not help noticing that DMARC is described as an IETF
> publication.  Is that accurate?

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?