Re: DMARC-4-ML: Can the IETF call a demonstration?

Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net> Wed, 14 May 2014 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <hsantos@isdg.net>
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 A2AD81A00B2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:44:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.138
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.138 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 h2P9om9ejMD4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from listserv.winserver.com (catinthebox.net [208.247.131.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C7921A0103 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 May 2014 10:44:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=isdg.net; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/relaxed; l=1256; t=1400089444; h=Received:Received: Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject: List-ID; bh=R+w4vDDBvmmqZycctHjKfzfpXdg=; b=iUAgTAz+udt8JV8VLVjK BLE7F7JWH5ZmgbwwlVrgkElL68WKcDIC5535/xPkf5/wUkTm9nIkZpwcVlP80s5t 8xhYLFVJP2QKBqdT0sg4gAE5qwA9dGJSZOkUJvGbOL6Q3y1BgXgViElv8ZdU//ot EKfSbTcQJbX6fFOqfX1Xf4M=
Received: by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 14 May 2014 13:44:04 -0400
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com; dkim=pass header.d=beta.winserver.com header.s=tms1 header.i=beta.winserver.com; adsp=pass policy=all author.d=isdg.net asl.d=beta.winserver.com;
Received: from opensite.winserver.com (beta.winserver.com [208.247.131.23]) by winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 3197991121.15133.3396; Wed, 14 May 2014 13:44:02 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=beta.winserver.com; s=tms1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/relaxed; l=1256; t=1400089323; h=Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:Organization:To:Subject:List-ID; bh=XHj5cR/ bONTghKqWNfrbuW5o2MP9Zkzpays5jwI8YLg=; b=cCPpvEYLA1fQnCIoAtE0KJI 1KuUkLWfrYzcMzMf71MweE6AsEYxxuyfTGyQa7/EL8cqZEnADYBd2zqVLQgPVEpq y1NLKuKR+ZMaKtb91k/yfD1wo5JCPawcMHErgNzwRSC4FwJlj1zgMJcEci9FoC5O Fche08Lynf3Nu7uKOU+s=
Received: by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP Router v7.0.454.4) for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 14 May 2014 13:42:03 -0400
Received: from [192.168.1.2] ([99.121.4.27]) by beta.winserver.com (Wildcat! SMTP v7.0.454.4) with ESMTP id 3217498421.9.16328; Wed, 14 May 2014 13:42:01 -0400
Message-ID: <5373AB60.2080703@isdg.net>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 13:44:00 -0400
From: Hector Santos <hsantos@isdg.net>
Organization: Santronics Software, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DMARC-4-ML: Can the IETF call a demonstration?
References: <537358E1.8060101@tana.it> <0168AF240FBAEFE4174A1B21@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
In-Reply-To: <0168AF240FBAEFE4174A1B21@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/4fQnMSCnNIa1qfRzYh1FQYjWCxA
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: Wed, 14 May 2014 17:44:20 -0000

On 5/14/2014 8:39 AM, John C Klensin wrote:

>> The combined
>> effect seems to weaken both DMARC and mailing lists.
>
> So?  Perhaps we should be focusing more on strategies that
> weaken DMARC to the degree necessary or appropriate without
> weakening mailing lists or imposing added costs on those who
> operate or subscribe to them.
>
> The analogy is obviously not exact, but, if some external group
> came up with a protocol that weakened TCP and undermined all of
> our congestion control mechanisms, we might be pointing out the
> damage and encouraging people to not use that protocol --
> perhaps even figuring out ways to block its use -- but would not
> be scurrying to alter TCP to better accommodate the behavior of
> that new protocol, especially if the alterations made "normal"
> use of TCP less efficient or effective.

John,

Right, its not the same analogy when you consider the IETF did now 
change "TCP" with a now new IETF STD level change/addition to TCP. 
The problem has alway been that the change was for a last signer trust 
model at the expense of original source policy model which the 
industry clearly desired if TCP was going to be now potentially 
challenged with new TCP signature stamps.

-- 
HLS