Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Thu, 17 July 2014 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012561A0076 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 sqx9zfC9lV8y for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:59:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EF1E21A009C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id gl10so2072674lab.35 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=F1s9ysawR2Wj27oy2Pwkem1/G7DeSS+QficDGMYd2iA=; b=AQohc7e5s8G9ShB9S11GFyvxDvIEagnJqJ+OPG/Q6AnGreFnP6Bl63dxPcCxHkQyAP bzLAfzb5CQfIj+p84CbtLLmKegyjci/djtPYw8rLRT7Up7HBi6p+d+eyPI15kM48E99Z NSpsBvJ2E8lzZBREWW+Yrlok4hBKF1qYHCSRTgTJxPxo5d51urV32vUcr/Lxkp0B2ids FILpFZGzHeo/jZt+VChIQxd5MHNn8TZGCtmlpsgNAGHHopnbqdv2aYIAIhFBuXkxcikk GSteIAqZZAb+2vQMv5M/4LF36fwM6qJV1jKR0Sb2MIt1SHgyL+N34cnHb9NyFvcFm4m0 r1aQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.42.138 with SMTP id o10mr36157347lal.36.1405623559113; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.152.104.80 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Jul 2014 11:59:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20140717072736.0ddb14c0@elandnews.com>
References: <20140714164212.22974.20340.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140716100922.0ceba268@resistor.net> <53C70443.8020709@dcrocker.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140716161255.0ac7a6f0@elandnews.com> <53C71991.3040909@bbiw.net> <6.2.5.6.2.20140716200958.0cb6d4c8@elandnews.com> <CAC4RtVB895qQam48dqpG7CX+YCxPp0-5Er8j_=NR-YexTQRtmA@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20140717072736.0ddb14c0@elandnews.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:59:19 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: HPlRN7VovdZFdth2FXtImJehFuM
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+_R=kxdf3E94kA=+S2gHaht9vSrkPQYdREnsqdWLJGkw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/3tu1zdXmFH9U9s3CjPAFOzeF4LI
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 18:59:22 -0000

> Section 16.4 requests the creation of a registry where
> assignments require "IETF Review".
...
> I don't think that the IESG would be okay with the
> creation of an IETF registry without IETF Review.  I don't know whether the
> IESG has discussed that point.

It has, and there's no problem.  The IESG has objected to Independent
Stream documents creating registries with policies of Expert Review or
Specification required, because those commit the IESG to appointing a
Designated Expert, with all the management necessary for that.

But other registration policies don't commit anyone to anything, and
an Independent Stream document creating a registry that requires IETF
Stream RFCs in oder to register in it... is perfectly fine.  Yes, the
IESG has discussed this in relation to other Independent Stream
documents.

And, in fact, it's possible that a dmarcext working group that might
be chartered might be the first use of that registry.

> wouldn't describe the situation with respect to DMARC as the IESG being
> proactive [1] given that there is probably significant deployment of the
> protocol.  Please note that I am not basing my opinion solely on the eight
> domains mentioned above.

I still don't understand what you expect to have done here.  The IESG
is evaluating this charter.  If there's a change you want to see in
the charter text, please clearly state it.  If there's something you
want the IESG to consider as it evaluates the charter, please be clear
about exactly what that is, so the IESG can consider it.

Barry