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

S Moonesamy <> Tue, 12 May 2020 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3EF3A0C8B; Tue, 12 May 2020 16:47:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TXNheVvtAe9W; Tue, 12 May 2020 16:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2A03A0C8A; Tue, 12 May 2020 16:46:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 04CNkdgt007408 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 May 2020 16:46:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1589327211; x=1589413611;; bh=d6ixxe1rL+kLxF6bp66eWNV+s9bc8fOjm7JD5HBRZ2Q=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=qvC+8LfOoP8BXvZBitOFXAPIk85hhyITD8OeZrDe/KZ4NGxmabUnVgQcDb9nWsWss +Ndlmw1pYUh1BiMl+ZF/q/zHn3Pp+TgJGaEz28DnOl5C0QL3B9VVV4gIGRL9TD4aww QmwMGlwfZnm3q0T1K6CZJdgrBdjEWyqeW8sd5Bqk=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 16:46:28 -0700
To: Stephen Farrell <>,,
From: S Moonesamy <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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: Tue, 12 May 2020 23:47:01 -0000

Hi Stephen,
At 04:15 PM 12-05-2020, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>I'm not seeing why this is an IAB matter. Current IETF
>WGs are looked after by the IESG.

I'll list a two points:

   (a) The liaison relationships with external organizations are 
managed by the IAB.

   (b) The liaison representatives who speak on behalf of the IETF 
fall under the IAB.

I understand that existing IETF Working Groups fall under the 
IESG.  However, asking the IESG about a matter which falls under the 
IAB could be viewed as the IAB not having any role in (a) or (b).

Out of curiosity, what are the specific responsibilities of the 
liaison representative in the current case?

S. Moonesamy