Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC working group charter proposal

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 20:46:17 -0700

Hi Murray,
At 22:26 31-03-2013, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>A first draft of a charter can be found linked from 
>http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki.

I am picking on a specific point in the charter:

   "SPF (RFC4408) and DKIM (RFC6376) provide basic domain name authentication
    methods for email."

There is an IETF working group working on an update to RFC 4408.  Was 
that taken into consideration for the proposed charter?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 2 Apr 2013 04:00:46 -0000

>   "SPF (RFC4408) and DKIM (RFC6376) provide basic domain name authentication

I suppose it could mention spfbis, but at this point spfbis is close
enough to done that I think we can say with high confidence that
nothing it does will affect DMARC.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 21:10:38 -0700

That's basically what's expected, yes.  At the time the charter was
presented for public review, RFC4408 was the current specification for
SPF.  The documents this WG produces will certainly refer to the right
thing when the time comes.

-MSK

On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Levine <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:33:33 -0700

> that taken into consideration for the proposed charter?

SM,

What 'consideration' do you have in mind and how would it affect DMARC 
and its working group, one way or the other, besides merely changing the 
RFC number?

d/

-- 
  Dave Crocker
  bbiw.net

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:57:40 -0700

Hi Dave,
At 21:33 01-04-2013, Dave Crocker wrote:
>What 'consideration' do you have in mind and how would it affect 
>DMARC and its working group, one way or the other, besides merely 
>changing the RFC number?

John Levine and Murray Kucherawy covered what I was thinking about 
when I mentioned "considerations".  It is also about the proposed 
working group not having to go through a long discussion of whether 
to change the RFC number or not.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 16:08:56 +0000

Several of us, participated in the SPFbis workgroup, we got clarification on bounce and SPF as no one worries about bounces... :P

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Monday, April 1, 2013 9:10 PM
To: John Levine <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: SM <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC working group charter proposal

That's basically what's expected, yes.  At the time the charter was presented for public review, RFC4408 was the current specification for SPF.  The documents this WG produces will certainly refer to the right thing when the time comes.

-MSK

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc