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

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sun, 30 June 2013 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.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 E554021F992A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.432
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.432 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Tz-3W8Qn1x6W for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.amsl.com (mail.amsl.com [64.170.98.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0076D21F965B for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by c9a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDA4A8AB5; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from c9a.amsl.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (c9a.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K1TW35n0dzAu; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.2.109] (pool-96-241-156-29.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.156.29]) by c9a.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC73DA8AB4; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <51CE0195.8090504@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 11:47:50 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EAB182AB-76D4-4F88-8BBD-CC327C39BC8D@vigilsec.com>
References: <20130628211600.84812.qmail@joyce.lan> <51CE0195.8090504@gmail.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
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: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 15:47:58 -0000

Barry tells me that the base DMARC specification will be AD sponsored.  Therefore, the BOF will talk about work beyond the base DMARC specification.

Russ


On Jun 28, 2013, at 5:35 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:

> On 6/28/2013 2:16 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> that we modify the proposed agenda as follows:
>>> -- Summary of DMARC
>>> -- Summary of open issues
>>> -- Charter review
>>> -- Hums
>>> 
>>> Comments? Thoughts?
> 
> 
>> This version presumes that people attending the BOF need to read the
>> drafts first, which seems utterly reasonable.
>> 
>> For the charter, I think it's important for people to understand that
>> DMARC is basically done with multiple working implementations
>> including several at giant mail systems. (I've written one of the
>> smaller ones.)  So the WG can certainly clean up and clarify the text,
>> and improve the discussion of where it's useful, but it's too late
>> to make incompatible changes to the bits on the wire.
> 
> This presumes that the DMARC base specification is part of the working group effort.  There's been enough back and forth on this point that it's probably worth clarifying it for this list.
> 
> To counter the suggestion not to discuss the current "Using" draft: Normally a BOF will provide some commentary about documents intended as input to the proposed working group.
> 
> 
> d/
> 
> -- 
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net