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

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Thu, 17 July 2014 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.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 C6CAE1A0652 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:10:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.441
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Zp4UxNcsCCyG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9641A04B8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:10:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SUBMAN.elandsys.com ([197.224.144.75]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s6H6A7Nc008244 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Jul 2014 23:10:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1405577419; x=1405663819; bh=SfTEUOsH7Y0rqncGuIbRcduEFEJmJlpsm/x1YrCjzGA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=2QfCoC/CArDEOcK+1m37z2swgi6j/4gw+r5T2Kg16ty2Zg/bdYjW0CUKFGXcHi/Oh vdW05ifQ54Ao8qiu5DOff4Hy4nzaU9IlJb7YOlN2fCdXQw0ARcEgwXdUHjPKxe2OS6 7bYZNbuCaWpcoDJFTUIbvSPWMxtFONeLC6dFnF3Q=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1405577419; x=1405663819; i=@elandsys.com; bh=SfTEUOsH7Y0rqncGuIbRcduEFEJmJlpsm/x1YrCjzGA=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=SXnjvYpYboqSfPs2Rjn/7ZX/xXZzXf0NB5x7qJ1bm8DV5yCA4+/72m9FNs/g6Q+9w IZ0Qx3p9zEP/uUz1g6IZwTS4upIZzUwWb9MApDrHfsnt9cMsKDUzXsHWZOEWT8JmLj eJbH7V5wdkO5cVPAN12F1VYoXNGptyPVOeOfD9SA=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20140716200958.0cb6d4c8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:56:50 -0700
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)
In-Reply-To: <53C71991.3040909@bbiw.net>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Bipm70sPz04AkCWPj1Aa-aKvVqU
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 06:10:32 -0000

Hi Dave,
At 17:32 16-07-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
>Unfortunately I think I'm more confused now.
>
>The existing draft has been submitted independently.  As such it is not
>part of the working group chartering process.  Any IESG activity, with
>regards to the independent submission, is independent of this wg draft
>charter.  The independent submission is mentioned in the draft charter
>only as some convenient background.
>
>With respect to protocol parameter assignments, you appear to be
>suggesting that something is or has been problematic, but I can't tell
>what it is.  In any event, are there changes to the draft charter that
>you are suggesting?

In my opinion the existing specification cannot be published through 
the Independent Stream because of the IANA Considerations section, 
i.e. it has to be sent to the IESG.  The Application Area Directors 
will have to decide what to do about the "Email Authentication 
Parameters" assignments as conflict of interest can be raised as an issue.

The proposed charter states that DMARC has been deployed.  The 
(proposed) working group discussions will have to take that into 
account and also refer to a DMARC specification as it is not being 
asked to design a protocol to solve one or more problems.  The 
(proposed) working group reviews the DMARC specification and finds 
out that the assignments have not been done.  The easy path would be 
to fix the IANA stuff and move forward.  Given that this is an 
email-related working group there is bound to be strong 
disagreement.  Process issues could be raised; I am not inferring 
that it is bad.  This is where one looks into whether there has been 
any arbitrary decision.

"Protocol parameter assignments" is about IETF policy; it is not 
DMARC specific.  It is related to the discussion on an IAB mailing 
list.  It can impact on future IESG decisions.

To be clear, I am not suggesting any text changes to the draft 
charter.  I commented as it looks like a matter for the IESG to consider.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy