Re: [dmarc-ietf] Working group next steps

Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com> Tue, 26 March 2019 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <seth@valimail.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 AF47C1203E3 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:05:53 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=valimail.com
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 emTmVfHCWtaV for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:05:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) (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 D3C3A1203A0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id k11so7867151wro.5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:05:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=valimail.com; s=google2048; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pLNa9Mn2PWe2eW0oBD+B3aa9bXKIdxlUmqzLOLfAWeo=; b=bpxvMkhGSUfNyQiOwpW/rR1kYCISObd0VFKYvmWGSSkgioPPCEgB459hFMr3eX/pRa yMwdpxVwfh8yepEu5dj3JVGiRNfLo8Z5mUOOlfv8xrN3nU/J3ZIIBK/lLIYfRk6muG2L /9YZw7gpkr2B2dogmq5aj7yrDXrDF/4a86UtjIcauINZk0CankpeolqLZvT4sMu6swKN rBwoxtTQ2sR0PjbNDhBLUQ+Y9kf7Yy138P8B0NBx/ArTG9ws+KEwGmh1/Arw3owKu5iX hv7jP9X8tdabujpbc+gGPdB1wjlMmOquV7LtfyODlKSEpWxCrz4hh2OqONjfvJfoSUd2 prNQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pLNa9Mn2PWe2eW0oBD+B3aa9bXKIdxlUmqzLOLfAWeo=; b=PIJoHfR52WNDBLkQSkLmV3mTh7x9wWFMJqbLNlhO+DltBN7YuP4pDZbGRQM11pTGTZ 0IycC/VaQT0sKnJ84TbdGZA08hS6HPLbqo92d0GZfpGhzDxt31m35M8NkwMdimIZwIoO nae+nrJiOaxOqn4mAv1Cvy0eKuxlWdfJx81oUKx+iqRaGCMZqZvfJCOZ32wbVdim+Jkx dyKazhZZ85GV4SsYHz1TA5jwFKAvhufxa4BstT2kbAid2bVRxmYZsr00jgtCgHixW9oR uI+wkbD3qwGqKYVdk7JAd5ULTihqC/F3krDO/viokhis6Z5eRJVVasdcEUuXvKnx4ci5 WFuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVc7KPe2mwPR1MnQPJjh2vVhgUtLqqz+rpRmb43jvrtS5n+xfjn tE7k9Ea7LUEAZMRpXSO1Ch94HlNqc0IqZOGCW6n7ZHrWUJ+MSA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx3D0w4qnwpzY2ySfOdBFDG6NvKNiSykF8+L/NRyaGBGXtf0+p7Gnjux51wgAFzH18M3aBniuESFkfMd0Kn08E=
X-Received: by 2002:adf:f451:: with SMTP id f17mr16899506wrp.272.1553619949086; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:05:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAL0qLwaPG+CcuMGsJjdJM=x4bigSXvRAHxAf3nk9krknJbtUqw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwaPG+CcuMGsJjdJM=x4bigSXvRAHxAf3nk9krknJbtUqw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Seth Blank <seth@valimail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 18:05:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAOZAAfM-XedsMk2wsAfkd_F56t5YhkdqzfOcJGCad39F6aa=-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Cc: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002e7c4305850255c8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/i6IYJg7htAjl_w-qUqVVTsk8aFs>
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: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:05:54 -0000

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 5:58 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

+1. This draft addresses several clear use cases and is critical to
standards track DMARC.


> 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.
>

+1. At IETF99 I signed up to be the author of this. I'm still happy to do
this work, and believe it's critical a) for the success of ARC, and b) for
standards track DMARC.

Seth