IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Eliot's review of the DMARC spec

Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemon.net> Thu, 23 May 2013 19:48 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@eudaemon.net>
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 3269721F981C for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 12:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 sTTRJnOrdXsn for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 May 2013 12:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65D6021F9743 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 12:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.7] (sctv-72-100.mounet.com [216.145.72.100]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0F3A4CB46 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 May 2013 15:12:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemon.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6D9A5480-CB30-4E7E-8E60-0983EF013665"
Message-Id: <1B552522-AF8D-4A2C-8F46-BFF25DC199D7@eudaemon.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 15:11:38 -0400
References: <519B47DC.20008@cisco.com> <CAL0qLwYZOp1FNVSAmzXYkZG_O3Yv+EQrAKKLpRiE5svcOMamTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwYZOp1FNVSAmzXYkZG_O3Yv+EQrAKKLpRiE5svcOMamTA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Eliot's review of the DMARC spec
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: Thu, 23 May 2013 19:48:05 -0000

On May 23, 2013, at 1:43 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Requirements] read like there was a negotiation among the contributors on what to keep out and what to keep in, or perhaps these are markers for the working group.

Ha!  Eliot, you've nailed it.  Looking back, the document is largely the result of a long negotiation between organizations that all share a desire to combat fraud, and yet brought very different perspectives/emphasis to the effort.

Against that backdrop, a hearty +1 to your's and SM's comments.  Converting the DMARC memo into a proper protocol document means chopping away a great deal of the "result of long negotiation" bits, but hopefully those bits can be stitched together into supplementary documentation, as they're valuable as reference and maybe to clarify future discussion.

=- Tim

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email