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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 30 June 2013 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 A60B321F9CA2 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:15:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.971
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.228, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 XeevsVn7Ch3v for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E30321F9C6B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1360 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2013 22:15:06 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 30 Jun 2013 22:15:06 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51d0adea.xn--btvx9d.k1306; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=Wj4dPhFzjQPMw2qEBMmzGNfVUpi070KD7jkfYxvmpik=; b=uKOMBaFbfHeBDHgYWV8zTPWcMGLw3+MFTRN2ZY6TUAuHArgva6C49RxYXnO1CLIhJVCdqGnmoIfYHgQlBeEFls9WlkbB9V5KuG14O05VK56Lbay7P3FBzmlhx9BL0vCkpJVRx8nLSVIxKuEAUuoxfVjL3A2cMBbuG2NtArPcaF32PP1WJflLxJZC7FoBKva8akBUxf3IfL+ryc5F55KtBaZSI+CTA/wis2NAVdRdGAL6qC7iJmoIlR7U0erjaRNy
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51d0adea.xn--btvx9d.k1306; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=Wj4dPhFzjQPMw2qEBMmzGNfVUpi070KD7jkfYxvmpik=; b=dmcpqDuX1r4JYAKrQez2/02BQKMh9MEzj3gKAq/t4kF3B5fDJ/mzbN8E5JZtNvPgJQd3J0J3pLc53M9csGccKkYyPpZxwY6zmkY6roQRI12YUIwwK2sWQMUQ+7S0EgGdJa7PiyVl0e/hZtkXXGQ3yrKVBMYW07gi2+dKSYDpYTjK72z1SxAtaZVkPGrn4NtngsjVoFip0lDArNgZJAtImoaC1qjv2+6ieVAS6/60oumgDx4Cm3eTeiVWvt8zmDS8
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 22:14:43 -0000
Message-ID: <20130630221443.71098.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <51D0901E.4000003@gmail.com>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Cc: dcrocker@gmail.com
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 22:15:11 -0000

> And there have recently been some detail, independent reviews that
> are prompted a document revision that will be issued within days.

While I don't doubt that the next version will be better, I think that
the dmarc.org group needs to make up its mind and either get a
reasonably chartered IETF WG that says no gratuitous changes to the
bits, contribute all of the drafts to the WG, and take its chances. or
else contribute none of them and just send them in via the independent
stream.

I understand why you might want to tell the IETF that it can only
change the minor documents, not the major one, but I don't see why the
IETF would be interested.

R's,
John