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
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Scott Kitterman
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Douglas Otis
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Scott Kitterman
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Viktor Dukhovni
- not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-based… t.p.
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John Levine
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… ned+ietf
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Scott Kitterman
- RE: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Christian Huitema
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… ned+ietf
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… John Levine
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Scott Kitterman
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Dave Crocker
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Douglas Otis
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… John Levine
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Scott Kitterman
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Dave Crocker
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Niels Dettenbach (Syndicat IT&Internet)
- Re: really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-based… Alessandro Vesely
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Scott Kitterman
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… t.p.
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-b… Hector Santos
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Hector Santos
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Pete Resnick
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Martin Rex
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Martin Rex
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Randy Bush
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John Levine
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Barry Leiba
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John C Klensin
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Barry Leiba
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John R Levine
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Martin Rex
- Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain-bas… S Moonesamy
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… Barry Leiba
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Dave Crocker
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Pete Resnick
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Pete Resnick
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… S Moonesamy
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… Barry Leiba
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… Barry Leiba
- Re: Registration policies (was: WG Review: Domain… Murray S. Kucherawy
- [***SPAM***] Re: Registration policies (was: WG R… S Moonesamy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… ned+ietf
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Hector Santos
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Martin Rex
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Stuart Barkley
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Randy Bush
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… John Levine
- DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Douglas Otis
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… S Moonesamy
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [***SPAM***] Re: Registration policies (was: … Barry Leiba
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John C Klensin
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Miles Fidelman
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Eric Burger
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Miles Fidelman
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Pete Resnick
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Dave Crocker
- Re: [dmarc-ietf] WG Review: Domain-based Message … Hector Santos
- Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authenticatio… Martin Rex
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Martin Rex
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Levine
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Hector Santos
- RE: DMARC and ietf.org MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Hector Santos
- RE: DMARC and ietf.org MH Michael Hammer (5304)
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Hector Santos
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Levine
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Levine
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Rich Kulawiec
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Levine
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Alessandro Vesely
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org ned+ietf
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Russ Housley
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org ned+ietf
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Andrew G. Malis
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Russ Housley
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Brian E Carpenter
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Dave Crocker
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Russ Housley
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org Michael Richardson
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Payne
- Re: DMARC and ietf.org John Levine