[dmarc-ietf] Working group next steps

"Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com> Tue, 26 March 2019 16:57 UTC

Return-Path: <superuser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A5351206A1 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:57:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WcSaw4ZKr8kW for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7013412050E for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id p14so10812731ljg.5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:57:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=J+5q9vYtJUVswzTKcJ9eAdWYu2qdBeUhmz0ieIJ91ZU=; b=CAppydFOGuaYlhm80DClQKJp9g8AdgkPr8gLqtBt39s81pGjxgQdCdGJTtz+GabUX3 qyNgkJNCO57mTacFOanmwujckmJf6XXi4MUP0rHC/Cf7NNWT3kqcq7KGlCsPPY4pfsk5 LUXEDRuRdkPlEvZqZXRCBxPieHfbHpPAUQgwKeLrCtgeVxa0K2c1ifSqIQDC3zCiSUtE MVOMC0kU9X6VRGEWqvL3FJLkfXfNiFOJ85nO9wJ3VRl8xIYzSF7KMLlid1E1F4l8tUtp AvYw442CTDKw0AVc8b2+b7yIxfbKwTWwPZIqU36C88jKRKOG89FOS/CQCAdjyoDsrqWb uyBw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=J+5q9vYtJUVswzTKcJ9eAdWYu2qdBeUhmz0ieIJ91ZU=; b=hWEus2T5ybi/2n5eSczKazkC2Qc8BwUi29rLii2iurzct15yOucTZcSINJ52m8etkN /mW7qMUm5sFsX7C6F8uBBml4P5DzJXr2DVSeSsYXdd883vNQqc7DzSgaRISb1LZw6trc V+XOLXPtd+FdhqWpM49/+An/BXyR/9HzbYUvuEgQyRrCn3Iy74wXe2eh0r0UwY6FBmBS LJGuvGRX+QnwFJ+EIose68RvsnulJUFizjhDLibfcDttBS2MoXfjSUwP6z+zADa8xfDJ IPf6IUN7A3yzPCE2H6a4GqKRoH7E9YYL9mtluz++RcDDIWs5nDVzfOqvRRLHCDBR+Ds7 8i1Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU6I7PWGNyU9ZhcotrpQ7uEEfhEKTzOfLjA806FG5OubP6WogSO S238mkXlrDfAtYDgD5Mf1ZNjV5DFGDsxPbsE9Rza9INJCjI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyCWJICznTOYXKA4hAAbDPxDZJ023dkPvhOKijGDHgxzZIjsySPQOdH691m/FHNeobyg7h9IAqh91NztCyzGQI=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:390c:: with SMTP id g12mr10610371lja.174.1553619467391; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 09:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:57:33 +0100
Message-ID: <CAL0qLwaPG+CcuMGsJjdJM=x4bigSXvRAHxAf3nk9krknJbtUqw@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007855e9058502380e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/M1rlnhmXQR92LUWcf5i0EOcckY4>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Working group next steps
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, 26 Mar 2019 16:58:01 -0000

DMARC colleagues,

Tim and I met in Prague to get things rolling in terms of getting us
progressing again toward our remaining deliverables.

Producing a DMARC on the standards track is the endgame for us.  We're keen
to identify and focus on work that is in direct service of that goal;
anything else can be parked for now and we can return to it once the main
work is done, assuming we still have the energy to do it.  Accordingly, we
propose to formally park draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi and

The working group should, in the short term, focus on development and
completion of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd.  Among the questions to be answered is
its urgency: If there is pressure to get this finished and published in
some form, we suggest the WG consider moving this to Experimental status,
aligning it with the ARC base work, and come back around to merge it into
DMARC when it goes to the Standards Track.

Toward the goal of getting to the work on the standards track base
specification, we should start collecting issues, from nits on up to things
that need overhaul, in the WG's tracker.  We would like this list to be as
exhaustive as possible.  When we do finally get to the work of standards
track DMARC, we can run it like a checklist.  Please take some time to go
over the list that's already in the tracker, and add anything you think is


You may need a login credential if you haven't already established one.
This can be done via the IETF datatracker: https://datatracker.ietf.org/

Previously (at IETF 99), the WG has discussed an augmentation of DMARC's
reporting capabilities to include attributes of ARC evaluation of a
message.  It's been suggested that this is a critical thing to include in
the ARC experiment and thus input to standards track DMARC work; it was
left out of ARC's base document to keep ARC decoupled from DMARC for now.
If consensus concurs with this position, we're looking for document
editor(s) to spin up that effort.  The chairs are, however, cognizant that
each new work item we take up has the effect of pushing standards track
DMARC further down the road, so we would like to keep this sort of thing to
a minimum.

Finally, there have been some hallway inquiries here at IETF 104 about
canonicalizations that can survive mailing list transit.  I thought it
worth checking with the WG to see if there's any energy or interest in
revisiting this kind of work; it does fit within our charter, but
previously attempts at this kind of work have waned.

We look forward to hearing your views on any or all of the above.  We can
start by having everyone begin logging their open DMARC specification
issues into the tracker, and ask that everyone please review and comment on
the PSD draft and provide comments.  In particular, anyone that has
implemented it is particularly requested to comment (including Scott, since
we imagine he's tried this by now).