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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 07:13:47 PM Franck Martin wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Barry Leiba
> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> Then why have a BoF at all?  It seems rather premature to discuss work
> beyond the base specification before we know what will be in the base
> specification.
> 
> Scott K
> 
> First, the DMARC spec is sufficiently well baked and mature that it should
> provide a solid enough basis for discussion.  It's not likely that changes
> to it would be so drastic as to invalidate the BoF results.
> 
> Second, the *plan* right now is to have the base spec AD sponsored, but the
> BoF could provide input to that plan.  We expect to hear what the community
> thinks of the work and how it should proceed, as well as to get a sense of
> who will work on it, who will implement it, and that sort of thing.
> 
> 
> You can find the spec here:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 and it has not
> much changed (in terms of functionality) since the first release, one year
> ago: http://dmarc.org/draft-dmarc-base-00-01.txt
> 
> It has been 3 months since the spec has been released as an IETF document,
> where people had the opportunity to comment and as Barry said no drastic
> changes required have surfaced, and prior to that for more than a year the
> DMARC group has been taking input from the whole industry. so I'm not
> expecting any surprise, tho it may happen.

So far, comments have been made and I've no idea what, if anything is being 
done with them.  I've got my one pet rock issue and I think that the level of 
writing is not up to par for an IETF standard.  

Here's Russ' mail I was replying to:

On Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:47:50 AM Russ Housley wrote:
> Barry tells me that the base DMARC specification will be AD
> sponsored.  Therefore, the BOF will talk about work beyond the base DMARC
> specification.

This says the base spec is out of scope for the BoF.  Thus my objection.  I 
understand people that have already implemented DMARC are (reasonably) 
cautious about engaging with the IETF in a way that could cause it to change 
incompatibly.  OTOH, I think it's also reasonable for a new protocol that 
directly affects existing IETF protocols to have significant scrutiny.

Scott K