IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin

Franck Martin <fmartin@linkedin.com> Sun, 30 June 2013 21:09 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=8862bb6e8=fmartin@linkedin.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8474521F9C8E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:09:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5ANt7C+-YJnF for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com (esv4-mav04.corp.linkedin.com [69.28.149.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E9F21F9C61 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:09:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linkedin.com; i=@linkedin.com; q=dns/txt; s=proddkim1024; t=1372626563; x=1404162563; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=TLEbdpDWHtvi+C5h3kpNH8QfeM3WP63AAH3TQROWCEk=; b=VdA9d8/JvuU40qKdyxVHfyvhpLPd+x3cFNwnigjV5gkIDhxpXcktkkeC cq4E6HCAX/X+Skc/VuUPw4pV+dFLRrEXTMLVF2v60nuF0azHRniKoRRyR 9MoBcGB2F+Mpmzl/yY8tv5tZJdXDlyAfEreFtYBx1YVbU0nkTfBxQW0ae E=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,969,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="52656818"
Received: from ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz ([fe80::d029:a1fa:62c4:2641]) by esv4-cas02.linkedin.biz ([172.18.46.142]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.011; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 14:09:07 -0700
From: Franck Martin <fmartin@linkedin.com>
To: Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com>
Thread-Topic: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin
Thread-Index: AQHOdCfI9b5jenK0uUGXlrIwu64RYJlL68eAgAAqogCAAAVjgIACw5YAgAADJACAAC8KAIAAB2uAgAAH+YCAAAYRAIAAAQsAgAAGZYCAAAq/gA==
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:09:06 +0000
Message-ID: <77426B543150464AA3F30DF1A91365DE5338483A@ESV4-MBX01.linkedin.biz>
References: <20130630200414.70742.qmail@joyce.lan> <51D0901E.4000003@gmail.com> <1464579.xSTkz0YGGa@scott-latitude-e6320>
In-Reply-To: <1464579.xSTkz0YGGa@scott-latitude-e6320>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.18.46.250]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2BB2A0A36AF8964FB313AFC2DA699904@linkedin.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<dmarc@ietf.org>" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:09:27 -0000

On Jun 30, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Scott Kitterman <sklist@kitterman.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 30, 2013 01:07:58 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
>> On 6/30/2013 1:04 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> I'm with Scott.  While I agree that it would be bad to make
>>> incompatible changes to the many bits on the wire, the document itself
>>> could be improved.
>> 
>> Indeed, purely editorial, non-technical work rarely (if ever) warrants a
>> working group.
>> 
>> And there have recently been some detail, independent reviews that are
>> prompted a document revision that will be issued within days.
> 
> So then we're discussing about a BoF that may or may not include discussion of 
> a document that we haven't actually seen yet because it's being developed in 
> private.  
> 
> 1.  Definitely premature to be discussing it.
> 
> 2.  I don't think the IETF should be in the rubber stamp business.
> 

It should not and it is not. Submit you review like Eliot did:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/current/msg00292.html

I agree with Eliot's review and as Dave pointed, this is all editorial.

And the BoF will indicate if the AD sponsored path is the best path, or if there is substantial work to be done on the protocol. Is it? What work is needed?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email