Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do we need a session at IETF 104 in Prague?

Seth Blank <> Fri, 08 February 2019 23:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4818412D4E8 for <>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:13:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tjlD5fB3aPNY for <>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:13:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E80F7127AC2 for <>; Fri, 8 Feb 2019 15:13:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e24so8614143otp.11 for <>; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 15:13:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6f9Xi/gOoyp3kYiZqAtG+PYSHdB9sNGJfzWyM7O8UYI=; b=VzgAv4JxmxR+pjCIE8OvhgO60edLxe2Vc2yTJ0howHrCGCJbtsP71C5CIuqV5Ph8M3 aj756e239tYVaEoPXAInmkvhXYzSk7NHec0xglSbaNh/QEGZaeUl1hINIh1BLvy3DGPa FKSMo9S+Cq5KLPkApoTp597VecnassA5UzZOvzu5pXQ42hSD5TRqmAY+jJoLwoF4bq7l qqzISMATo6mij+UfEVpq1YMHIdhXbhE7eB12N4hsBLonGkNhA4RjavbVspWiuEf85tMw BpHqvOo7b9n7+nuasFEcUMQARU81JXvvIiOCUUph5F2eF3+47ujYOZgVY3oNeE6yJqFJ FCCA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=6f9Xi/gOoyp3kYiZqAtG+PYSHdB9sNGJfzWyM7O8UYI=; b=cIOM+doFnxCQvGAP6/ZsU8ARhidg6D2LstN9zTgkytDU7aJ8um856jAwGQwnh0oeex 2Pj+izlaxD3+IR7IR+jgPVFRhV2y8ojqbjcrLQtT2rckXMplfak6sFMzFOgyWeMxQNma 4UWT69U9sycLQRU7gXfPFn9B/Nk6M547d+PJnDESHWgpx4g1+VXnIQZusqtk3OEQ5rSJ SRkyeFOzlSrJ+jF4d3h0UZ/A5QJmnvmbkYwS5kNVOEFVMXMv1acTPGIvrVq4wFkw0f3k 801LmLsSpVizUHMLu+i5ofaIhg6gHlOiJwnGVA8XJjufisXMo0ZajETeo6Y3E/xeEwMt jOEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuav5eDdRqXpH5JcJDaiKfpqODyeCaK63+blsiBUiPYr0GjrtQVo j8bZiO+t94XepgwJtLZs2kM83Bk4c762oTZFATaI29E7D88=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYsT4Un/IxR9PPvVor11G6pt6Vyeiihr1tQu/GXG8y7IsV7EU2vFexft3hHSr2MJuKudwThXTgyDUfRfnpwefw=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:4c18:: with SMTP id l24mr2072401otf.120.1549667580006; Fri, 08 Feb 2019 15:13:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Seth Blank <>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 15:12:36 -0800
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a06fb305816a19ca"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Do we need a session at IETF 104 in Prague?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2019 23:13:04 -0000

On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 1:12 PM Barry Leiba <> wrote:

> It's time to decide whether we'll meet at IETF 104, so:
> Please post here if you think we *should* meet in Prague, and tell us
> what agenda items you're suggesting.

If Kitterman's Public Suffix Domain draft - and the proposed mechanisms for
controlling abuse - haven't reached consensus by the meeting, I think
that's ripe for a face to face.

At IETF99 we also discussed next steps for DMARC phase 3 and driving a
standards-track version of DMARC. Now that ARC is in the RFC Editor's
queue, it feels like the appropriate time to pick that conversation back up.

Realistically, IETF104 feels like the appropriate venue for both of these.