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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dave,
At 16:01 16-07-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Yes, but how does (or should) your comment affect the draft charter text?

I did not suggest any change to that text.  I expressed an opinion.

>The draft charter text only notes the fact of submission and says
>nothing about the further processing that has, might or will take place.
>  The IESG assessment is part of the 'will'.

I'll quote from 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13031.html

   "Existing deployment of DMARC has demonstrated utility at internet
    scale"

If I am not mistaken implementers are encouraged to request IETF 
protocol parameters assignments before deploying them at internet 
scale.  In my opinion an IESG assessment would be useful as the IESG 
is chartering a working group about DMARC.  I am taking a previous 
(IESG) conflict review into consideration 
(conflict-review-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt).

>Yes, it does set a high bar.
>
>As for actions already taken by some operators, those certainly should
>provide interesting input for consideration.  However the mere fact of
>those choices having been made does not mean that they are preferred or
>even useful.  That's what the working group will (I hope) consider.

Ok.

>Yes, it's a challenge to figure out how to word that concisely and
>helpfully, given that the charter has already been criticized for being
>too long.
>
>So, the intent of the phrase is to distinguish between mechanisms that
>might provide author-to-recipient utility, either due to a
>'collaborative' effort by both the author's operator and the
>intermediary, or solely by the author's operator, with the intermediary
>instead being 'passive'.
>
>An example would be a mechanism that requires the intermediary to add
>its own signature, versus one that might survive the intermediary, even
>without the intermediary taking special action.

Thanks for the above explanation.

>That's the intent of the charter, except to the extent that the dmarc wg
>might develop some useful input to a separate public suffix effort.

I'll say okay to this one.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy