IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com> Tue, 02 July 2013 02:49 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@gmail.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 0279811E838E for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 XvOFwAUN26zc for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ye0-x233.google.com (mail-ye0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c04::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8656321F9546 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ye0-f179.google.com with SMTP id r3so1416258yen.24 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8dfpLFGNFEmbIg649A9GTAms6W0YDtUH7dxssfqw1ec=; b=j5U8BxnP8bu1fQGeUieIgp2sXhVzHccieKlw5XdEb7GT9a/pRru33Qq4Lmx9qiHee5 BFOKVUqQO7HX6RKcsk945DD4n62g3y7KC10QcFBgfWJcD6p6aZqwSI/PT0k4EH+8YPgi 9zqm7LOcJNBCP6bJkwiy1W6u5WlJb9ZlvoGMg0dI1pk6Jmr2a+8bFF57o7ab7nk0Pi5R SiSxocvLATdZXcTSwrS/muNwKJV6H9m3keFNLvdkzdG0bErQ2+PY6Pw5ZY3mkgDc//a4 Y0tr+uDmbd72PePULTpMF7DHewNRlpPuK2rHDyDl/D+jsUB94b2cLHzrrt0sUYar+YAX zPww==
X-Received: by 10.236.154.37 with SMTP id g25mr13966604yhk.216.1372733353119; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:49:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.9.215]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m63sm28599979yhb.10.2013.07.01.19.49.11 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:49:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51D23F9C.2040707@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:49:00 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
References: <20130702013302.14968.qmail@joyce.lan> <51D23955.8030902@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307012226360.15177@joyce.lan>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307012226360.15177@joyce.lan>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 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: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 02:49:41 -0000

On 7/1/2013 7:27 PM, John R Levine wrote:
> I think the individual path is just dandy for
> competent documents written elsewhere.

Like Domain Assurance Council did for VBR?


> My point is that since dmarc.org can do this stuff, why should the IETF
> spend volunteer time on a WG?

Why was volunteer time reasonable for VBR but not now for DMARC?

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email