Re: [dmarc-ietf] Charter improvements

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

>> If the base spec is out of scope, I think the entire effort should be
>> deferred until after it's done. I don't think it makes sense to spin
>> up a working group to work on extensions until they can leverage a
>> stable foundation.

...

>   1.  There is no community support for any proposals to change the
> bits-over-the-wire.
>
>   2.  The current bits-over-the-wire protocol is widely
> deployed and is used for a very large fraction of the Internet's email
> traffic.
>
> Then if that does not constitute the ultimate form of "stable foundation",
> then I can't guess what you mean.

Indeed.  Let's be clear:

I have agreed to AD-sponsor the DMARC base spec *if* I see significant
community review and support for publishing it as Proposed Standard.
I do need to see more reviews and more comments about whether it
should be a Standards Track RFC, but that's a separate point.

We have gotten some reviews of it so far, and those reviews have
suggested some changes.

None of those suggested changes -- including the ones Scott and John
have made in their reviews -- are, in my view, of a nature that would
invalidate the work that the BoF is meant for.  I believe that, as
Dave says, the DMARC spec is sufficiently stable to be a foundation
for the BoF, and for the discussion we'll have there.

Let's please focus on two things:

1. For the BoF, let's work on using the time productively, starting
with the assumption that something fairly close to the currently
published DMARC spec is where we jump off from.

2. For the DMARC spec, let's please have more of the IETF community
review the document, specifically responding to the questions of (a)
what technical changes are needed in it, and (b) whether it should be
published as a Standards Track specification.

Barry, Applications AD