IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com> Fri, 13 November 2020 19:16 UTC

Return-Path: <kurta@drkurt.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 12D463A106F for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:16:09 -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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=drkurt.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 vSs9lsMnM4dB for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:16:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-il1-x133.google.com (mail-il1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (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 4459E3A1070 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:16:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-il1-x133.google.com with SMTP id k1so9444305ilc.10 for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:16:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=c60nfNMlOlhPR1lB1AaqvtI6oN++nQX41UvCAK5N0vg=; b=DOyiwelY8htOq+sChcCcp/iEql8vKJFZ/uCuwIwxOmIw++Du07TPm2TTeH1JO12hMV Yy7VTeVo1JebQyhADH1l0irED1jL9kmxtnM29F4/bOym9h6iLo5hfJKfJXCPoy7yBvDy fPW592xwmQ++jqFlszzPbQfTHlb1Y5u3dbG1o=
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=c60nfNMlOlhPR1lB1AaqvtI6oN++nQX41UvCAK5N0vg=; b=eJfoIGFLZyhVgqSEQnIQhbokqgyV/VXk8ibxY8zT/m3SIwyR4zEjUgz2Yf0wrtlSqC RhtXoMdf4y/cAOMuwmDPHrvwofOoi67SewN9eAvSsO9uKhw+r+CTo70Y1ERDzqY8jAJa w58nu+2UKDTEPrBB5niQYhWH9avkpkK6/8bOVTQBnxCEUeunfzxE/jM1kHOSuk+M4E1a Pqbg3NjkphUiVyOX44GFLigU95OWQ8H6ArwjhBYM4fQ5PiMbFFHj4HNJTFxYEp9JwgOR gENGKFGP8I00DYuaweOYjNp/L/Szo7imyrN4/ArQHBDV/Af5/rYTEoIqwuARrs/z0WjJ JppA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5326Bowmdi9whNpfo4Nym5SbryTH73XYFpecNuUAMXJ7Pp17yITj JQp+hTmdGbdX/f497/GjvvV/pi6ka2z5ST+BvJ6qIw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw9UQvtK96wMf9fZV3kC2TVLXe5DswYDywLGlZh4dpQD74XOjlyogbV055xXXPRKQMbzFhdIqmb/FOdzZKTVBY=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:9815:: with SMTP id l21mr1040636ili.120.1605294964062; Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:16:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADyWQ+F9zJuMoWJV7Rp3fVjESdB4N4dE-AjJjh82Satd6br-tQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADyWQ+F9zJuMoWJV7Rp3fVjESdB4N4dE-AjJjh82Satd6br-tQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <kboth@drkurt.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:15:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CABuGu1oXYTNtpFfAbWFd8EJkt6CYFcqzowChhT4Z-+aUjM0AXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF DMARC WG <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000017d42e05b401dc4d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/q1zcwo-7zgQA4dVv7R8vKrw9jkE>
Subject: Re: [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 19:16:09 -0000

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:41 AM Tim Wicinski <tjw.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

I'd vote for 3. I think that it would be better to discuss/hash out these
topics on the list. Perhaps we could start each one with a cogent summary
of the issues related to the topic.

--Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email