[dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 13 November 2020 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <tjw.ietf@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 7F9543A1095 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:40:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 lSGVX67LVE2L for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:40:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-oi1-x232.google.com (mail-oi1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::232]) (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 27CC53A1094 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x232.google.com with SMTP id o25so11452044oie.5 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:40:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vjpN/v6yzHgTry/aRSwm9DfsojgcL/+BR61WBA/Lwqo=; b=BG3SyjoRchyuxBKSN9uqZG+7k99Yk4UJxqEQQ5OB9haW15QBZGrx4kGs3ulawSYWaf z8jP35Qg2TTUbl9F7HynVJ+S95rzkxLPXOqLGrVVHjEaaAXS9ZEo+S9GBBLJNgtKyGLH a0bb8mugEKEXb9ruD+Vr0t+Uk+zwc35JuPPsEkig0oJ+4EFeNdIsdEQ5C2LkOwISlNW5 0fClpkwVX9W/0hf1r9ceRkC6Z5df+EgR2Y8Tb4aBYaT6nRsTL/QK5URQCsnhFicklZXv CpOiXsxCNJNY38tWnska8OBqt/EhoBsnMiYuYl/+rhL8Egi8Q5dVMjRxC3/foIPXfg+2 Bdjg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vjpN/v6yzHgTry/aRSwm9DfsojgcL/+BR61WBA/Lwqo=; b=bO7+HimFz6aNrRv/+ShI8G47u1Gljo4gUiIs8+QfdOTzyxafhl5PH7yZ0EjXJiHJJx jBO4G1AsfnEV/E32/t6SQPX47MIUCou5eqMOIoesCcMBLa2AYk71g0aU8ecS2ygEOuXh QQYlIJ+IwqP8yKtFSjh97BqZLvV7eQxb0pTcal6izmGoq5undlTAu+ToXdikDJrZ4GMp DD5ki6FQS3Wg7KdDU0Ru+KVN8szigfYo9m7MmvnUPXNTFS7uCoqR+TfaNloLm0RFPxx9 6k8EVwcLsjzkfamUUroS/q+IQucXX4f+4jgrghK3OJqWHvaTldf2a1w3aylmxlQAc82q sJWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532XaqTZVg5MEc6geW0ghdozzFBmBrjEUnoyvXrE77aYbUBFlKb3 jJnba8+UghFIEZdeXtrAzCbU3XAPQqWulhLLbSfK8QeHV8Q=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw2gnfnlZDBbB7imP0yB8FJUpKDUjGOXX5JZUAlk1bTPTeVU/+ssvMa+VllzqG/aLBa7cD64tUHAIi9WDqXjsM=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:3605:: with SMTP id d5mr2409284oia.45.1605292844716; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 10:40:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:40:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CADyWQ+F9zJuMoWJV7Rp3fVjESdB4N4dE-AjJjh82Satd6br-tQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c5174205b4015df2"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/n7JjsWmwo5ooXhLpb_flFhysTR4>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion
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: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 18:40:54 -0000

All

During the chairs call this morning we were discussing the upcoming
meeting.  Now Seth has a conflict with the meeting time that can't be
altered.   Since work items have been progressing rather well recently, and
the editors are in positing, we discussed canceling the meeting.  We wanted
to get some feedback from the working group.

Here is a lightweight agenda Seth put together.  Should we 1) have a
meeting around these topics;  2) discuss other topics or 3) cancel the
meeting and keep moving along.

thanks

tim
======


 break out definition of org domain to a different document?
  = scope?

- pct=
  = written, implemented, and understood differently
  = cause of lots of shenanigans
  = more damaging that it's worth?

- aggregate reporting
  = ARC reporting
  = extensible reporting
  = NXDOMAIN reporting

- failure reporting
  = slimmed down reports with minimal PII

- policy discovery
  = tree walk?