IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Sun, 30 June 2013 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@iecc.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 C16C421F99D9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.766
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.433, BAYES_00=-2.599, HABEAS_ACCREDITED_SOI=-4.3, RCVD_IN_BSP_TRUSTED=-4.3, 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 jetNL8GCfBB9 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F05721F99BB for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 84468 invoked from network); 30 Jun 2013 20:04:37 -0000
Received: from leila.iecc.com (64.57.183.34) by mail1.iecc.com with QMQP; 30 Jun 2013 20:04:37 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51d08f55.xn--9vv.k1306; i=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=2NGK11GhiaZI2JcPgwlmXE8ykGwRAR71I58BoGF5a1Q=; b=YDNHmlmy1dsDnFPhfaKCuyl1aloSS2PbZkU8/hxIxpFVbohH+EQLR9uJuWmGPlqfnEng4OkO2TyDxrhjfNOESt10koS/js3ZRkH47C9X0B4dN6XkSdi/GwrGYZy0O31UlbhxOj+oCSA1iqenUgW/LpVkGIz8DFirPDr/sasxNJUvUQMCLGWFNfCqmL+hROI0ppl3Lun68AHVGq48khNEBRj1aersLEfRCh5eXBoTd7o5J65xjhYdRICSkuNe7ZRZ
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=51d08f55.xn--9vv.k1306; olt=johnl@user.iecc.com; bh=2NGK11GhiaZI2JcPgwlmXE8ykGwRAR71I58BoGF5a1Q=; b=fybD1ZAvQXWQNWkOwB9CtdJVkagnXrpjWReN9XmaRPeYr9ILN5D+oIyMmeC47+scizq1Y9irFUNMM9oeL7Ctf7KIfvKh+jplL2APqMcl3smxhE5MaXthtPJlsSKO6/aD49B+BgB0x8kQqV9ncQTL+MOx4hjy9MqezYeqFm4fBVDp7RaK5wMa6d6GDnaGokFUfv/Q+1DVPwdY1GT7l4kZvE4VF6asWL1rUBmGIlWRIqMiabYWTf5OuZxrGzW4s508
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 20:04:14 -0000
Message-ID: <20130630200414.70742.qmail@joyce.lan>
From: John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: dmarc@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <11253780.gF1AY6Nnmb@scott-latitude-e6320>
Organization:
X-Headerized: yes
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Cc: sklist@kitterman.com
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 20:04:43 -0000

>This says the base spec is out of scope for the BoF.  Thus my objection.  I 
>understand people that have already implemented DMARC are (reasonably) 
>cautious about engaging with the IETF in a way that could cause it to change 
>incompatibly.  OTOH, I think it's also reasonable for a new protocol that 
>directly affects existing IETF protocols to have significant scrutiny.

I'm with Scott.  While I agree that it would be bad to make
incompatible changes to the many bits on the wire, the document itself
could be improved.

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email