Re: [dbound] Results of informal dbound discussion in Berlin?

[Casey Deccio <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> I saw lots of meeting planning notes toward the end of an informal
> get-together at the end of the week in Berlin. But then I've not seen any
> summary of what was discussed since then...did the meeting happen? Any
> progress?
>

In Berlin a small group met informally.  Here is a brief summary of what
was discussed.

There was some discussion about whether the working group should constrain
the solution design such that it should be in the DNS.  I (personally)
expressed that I didn't think it was necessary because unless there is a
solution proposed otherwise, why would we spend cycles to arbitrarily
constrain us?  I'm not sure our little group had any consensus, but I don't
think we weren't really seeking for it.

There was some review of the desirable characteristics of a deployable
solution.  One that was foremost was the notion that a solution should be
additive in terms of functionality, using the functionality of the current
PSL solution as a baseline--including not breaking current behavior.
Additionally, the maximum performance (mostly by way of DNS minimal
lookups) of a solution is desirable because current PSL consumers have the
benefit of referring to a local copy of the list.  We also mentioned
several desirable functionality extensions to the PSL:

- distributed management of the information.  One of the attendees
represented an organization with one of the largest contingencies of
entries in the PSL and described some of the pains associated with getting
their entries updated.
- organizational domain detection at arbitrary points between the PSL entry
and the domain name in question (e.g., the email suffix from the "From:"
header), for DMARC use.
- top-down and/or bottom-up policies (i.e., parent speaks for child and/or
child speaks for itself, regardless of what parent says)
- seamless deployment plan, consistent with where we are now (PSL) and
where we'd like to go

We discussed the SOPA and ODUP drafts in light of some of these
characteristics, and there was a brief demo of the ODUP draft (i.e.,
implementation).  However, there was a clear need of review of these
drafts, including by the authors of each.  Misunderstanding needs to need
to be cleared in order to clear the path to call for adoption within the
working group, etc.

Please see the following for a summary of the ODUP draft:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dbound/rRs4EghKGxaxU3AFMCDRKHBkh3w

Thanks,
Casey