Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working group next steps

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Wed, 27 March 2019 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.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 1DCE2120222 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 20:45:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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=isdg.net header.b=Xh03AWfj; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=beta.winserver.com header.b=BUT2LwKQ
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 5IBpnImIhC0R for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 20:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.winserver.com (ntbbs.santronics.com [76.245.57.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE12412020A for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 20:45:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=3482; t=1553658318; atps=ietf.org; atpsh=sha1; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From: Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=FKWQwkci3IENWq891ktJQe9IF8s=; b=Xh03AWfjAu+BWOxAgqwsv7KqSeEMXlqofUzAah0YOmHX2Z3OTD4fa1AGYJnGtc BpD2K5cXm6d2wMswiXVpBBvEUKv3V4oMfrtD6XjT3QS3rv5KGkoI2aEP9Pyp6r2t KQ3tTR9u6arnXkNPuljRyEt36vupOkzuHkwKdrLAddGrQ=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 22:45:18 -0500
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from beta.winserver.com ([76.245.57.74]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 4065199012.1.2640; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 22:45:17 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=3482; t=1553658275; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=Oo8PSpn HAGxT95a8WKgpUGiSekGKq1P7ou0Ip3yhcJI=; b=BUT2LwKQ3qhFiLTxErGDtNM OYfgNXcCxFGF5PpldLGW9M3OBrCuoQYbH/8FRM9NvolOChHC12V/Bd8nIoEn6/YB VPlQ1BLs4QOtIXS3d55HV+t/cFiAwkoVkM/1/q0tXl/EshKysEpTeYS23NNCGOdf JKmYBmSHbojVA0tmXoJ4=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.6) for dmarc@ietf.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:44:35 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.68] ([75.26.216.248]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.6) with ESMTP id 318097972.9.371296; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:44:34 -0400
Message-ID: <5C9AF1CD.3010006@isdg.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 23:45:17 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Reply-To: hsantos@isdg.net
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dmarc@ietf.org
References: <CAL0qLwaPG+CcuMGsJjdJM=x4bigSXvRAHxAf3nk9krknJbtUqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaPG+CcuMGsJjdJM=x4bigSXvRAHxAf3nk9krknJbtUqw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/PMxxa_dgYJnezN9hxLDGz_hYuJo>
Subject: Re: [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: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 03:45:32 -0000

Big time +1.  Focus on DMARC PSD! I agree with everything mentioned 
and hope to allocate time very soon to assist.

Thanks Murray, Great news!!

On 3/26/2019 12:57 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 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
> draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-usage.
>
> 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
> missing:
>
> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/report
>
> 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).
>
> -MSK
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

-- 
HLS