IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis way forward: Do we need our session at IETF 118

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Tue, 24 October 2023 18:15 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.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 58CE1C15155A for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12CmZK34DB7n for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-f42.google.com (mail-ej1-f42.google.com [209.85.218.42]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AE11C14CE2F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:15:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-f42.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-9bf86b77a2aso693848666b.0 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1698171334; x=1698776134; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:mime-version:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=aNIxUgGR28X6ypyUj8dhnb5VFVAOmLR4Pfm1AYm+lGo=; b=J8QICusvCnpZ7PINcH+iZC4tVN33WKn/MGoNFzvHCg9yIWszptpmdgCAcloolRLh/S ggrhM7JeqjTmc/HwtKSDtYs+T5QWcM8eVDHZTnTOVDMumWmZ7Qu9fmgWZLEJLKElV6rI XX+mevtfJ6lgW89VskM/JC/m3IEorHsjs5uAsWOtS3zIBE3KXcP4KcABH6v5zHePmRI1 yTiuBRqPcouPmDC3rz/cfixxEqWp0pFz243+OQW2Np56WGcjFdWIttmuhtjLrtrJXCng o+lQWbpnSJ7MoOOUHYxzwHWq1k0X7LnLaIMUaeI8fWlaza2qeo+L8ddhtCWoml6E82+o vYAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywu8qBRiBf2wg3UUuA4dw/GYtOGGDx9G1e8PBnE5GQXHMh0HlMW ZWDLZu8ovp45VTWanlY85No74PibRrolfDxZdTOsk4Yb0M8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGyn2Ob7mzZUnKuEtyu7evcdbYuy3+ZWIcGnqHdJV0VZYC1LnbTQGyKtidQEIyr2R603QjYm9/CWwMG1wXiDJ0=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:6d1d:b0:9c2:2d0a:320c with SMTP id sa29-20020a1709076d1d00b009c22d0a320cmr8828121ejc.46.1698171333712; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 11:15:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 20:15:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CALaySJL5WRX+tO+mokQuPoVN6d2bhLLtx_uY8ZSOZzvQzTVj4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/lplcAiYMqCh_Grp7lwfbDqlVicA>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] DMARCbis way forward: Do we need our session at IETF 118
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 24 Oct 2023 18:15:36 -0000

Now that we have a consensus call on the main issue that has remained open:

1. Do we need to retain our session at IETF 118 and discuss this (or
something else) further?

...or...

2. Do we have what we need to finish up the DMARCbis document, and
should the chairs cancel the session at 118?

Oh, and...

3. Is there something else (such as the reporting documents) that we
should use the time at 118 to discuss?  Or can we continue with those
on the mailing list for now?  My sense is that aggregate reporting, at
least, is just about ready to go and doesn't need the face-to-face
time.

Barry

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status