Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net> Tue, 17 November 2020 22:00 UTC

Return-Path: <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
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 991923A0E59; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:00:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bluepopcorn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vF5BeBBvQ6se; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:00:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1967B3A0E4B; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:00:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help: List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=x25nRdVRleYZO9qWEMDYDfZ6NF9DqykRBMaGfnAkqH4=; b=t02+a+IWGxcjGpArApOGhOdrQc M1OWZ/DHVtdDgtF5r3xikPjpFSqlnG61kMReyBUBr6d+AyKmePNMf3B1pgzqxFLtjvOW4NS9glu9V sjxSpo+zk0vXq0+jomKScfWgOm3g1hjz8GovJeVJCIOBUWhnIcmfalc+lrHuHE6Uor5I=;
Received: from [2601:647:4400:1261:bdd1:595c:6104:38d0] (helo=[10.10.20.144]) by v2.bluepopcorn.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>) id 1kf91a-000436-4g; Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:00:30 -0800
From: Jim Fenton <fenton@bluepopcorn.net>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:00:29 -0800
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.2r5673)
Message-ID: <992DD90D-452A-4DFE-A976-58EE75BBBC5C@bluepopcorn.net>
In-Reply-To: <d862f3f5-d127-f10f-8860-8875d8b3b9e5@dcrocker.net>
References: <CADyWQ+F9zJuMoWJV7Rp3fVjESdB4N4dE-AjJjh82Satd6br-tQ@mail.gmail.com> <801158ba-fcef-1bf3-497a-89e08c0005ec@dcrocker.net> <CADyWQ+FMfFeaOR8nBzSSZagp_msoDz9LfWfz-iZ+hKGgycWAOw@mail.gmail.com> <9BAE8F43-9B78-4352-A111-9549B7C46EDB@bluepopcorn.net> <CAL0qLwagPQrfBZS+YgJJaPWr161vPz3cLHQ8Ltqa=dutMB6mtA@mail.gmail.com> <d862f3f5-d127-f10f-8860-8875d8b3b9e5@dcrocker.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/FlJ2GNeCFuWvR9T5dZLjQCyDURk>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 22:00:50 -0000

On 17 Nov 2020, at 11:35, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 11/16/2020 10:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to 
>> you shortly.
>
>
> Forgive me, but this is all a bit nuts.
>
> Very few days before the scheduled session, we get a query about 
> canceling it, though the query also included a fresh, 'lightweight' 
> agenda.
>
> A couple of responses are posted, stating a preference for 
> cancellation, with no immediate responses choosing having the meeting 
> (though today, some have).
>
> We are now less than 12 hours from the scheduled time and still have 
> not received a definitive decision by the chairs.

+1. Given the amount of activity on the mailing list, it seemed obvious 
to me that we would benefit from some higher-bandwidth interaction. But 
apparently that’s less obvious to others.

If the meeting is held, I will be there (since it’s 9-11 pm here in 
California), but understand if we don’t want to keep others up for a 
less than fully productive meeting.

-Jim