Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [IAB] IETF 87 DMARC BOF evaluation

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 22:29:14 +0200

FYI
> Hi everyone,
>
> I also participated in the DMARC BOF.  I will add a few points.  The
> room was not mobbed, but there was, I think, clear interest in the room
> for the work to proceed, and that it was important.  Barry asked the
> question whether or not there would be more authors in the room than
> just the folk who brought the spec, and the answer there was no,
> although I think there were a few more hands for implementers.  And
> there were plenty willing to review.  The charter, while requiring more
> review, is generally in the ballpark.  I particularly like the idea on
> doing a BCP on operational practices, in as much as it would encourage
> operator participation.  The structure and scope of that document,
> however, may need a little work.
>
> I do not worry so much as Andrew does over the number of working groups,
> being the chair of qresync, a group that never plans to meet and hopes
> to be finished by the next meeting.  Moreover, I see this as an area
> where we as an organization can demonstrate that we are still doing
> stuff to improve the quality of email.
>
> I agree with Andrew that the WG should start AFTER the core spec is
> done, and the core spec is not done.  But it is probably close, as
> Andrew wrote.  Because of the above issue regarding the fact that the
> group of authors is not expanding, I think it's a good idea to keep them
> focused on getting the core at least past IETF last call.  This also
> resolves Andrew's concerns as well.
>
> Eliot

---

From: Trent Adams <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:42:20 +0200

Eliot -

Many thanks for sharing your note.  And thanks for your interventions in
the BOF (to borrow a term from OECD deliberations).  Your input is clearly
well-considered and valuable.

Just as a point of clarification:

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:29 PM, Eliot Lear <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > focused on getting the core at least past IETF last call.

It's probably not clear, but the set of authors who would work on the items
identified in the proposed DMARC WG Charter are not the same set as those
who would work on the specification itself.  There is some overlap, but the
items could easily be handled in parallel rather than in series.

>  This also

That's an interesting strategic point on it's own worth considering.

BTW - Who ultimately decides if a Charter is approved and the WG formed?
 Now that there was clear consensus in the room for the proposed DMARC WG
Charter, and we identified volunteers to work on the identified work items,
what's next?

And beyond who is making the decision, by what criteria will the decision
be made?  Now that we've cleared the first hurdle of the BOF, I'm just
wondering what the next obstacle is. . . or is it just a waiting game now
as we await the results of the deliberations?

Thanks again,
Trent

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

-- 
J. Trent Adams
=jtrentadams

Profile: http://www.mediaslate.org/jtrentadams/
LinkedIN: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jtrentadams
Twitter: http://twitter.com/jtrentadams

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 07:29:10 -0700

At 04:42 31-07-2013, Trent Adams wrote:
>It's probably not clear, but the set of authors who would work on 
>the items identified in the proposed DMARC WG Charter are not the 
>same set as those who would work on the specification itself.  There 
>is some overlap, but the items could easily be handled in parallel 
>rather than in series.

Andrew and Eliot posted their IAB messages to this mailing 
list.  This is not usually done or required.  It's a nice initiative.

In my individual opinion it would be better to have the new WG formed 
after the core specifications is done (see Andrew's and Eliot's 
comments).  There is an unrelated review by Martin Thomson at 
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg10132.html 
Some of his comments were:

   "I have reviewed the mailing list feedback, and it's not clear
    to me that there is consensus to publish this."

   "The fact that this work isn't a product of a working group
    still concerns me.  I'm actually interested in why this is
    AD-sponsored rather than a working group product."

The agreement of this mailing list does not have any formal standing 
(re. first quoted paragraph).

If the WG is created while there is a working group the second quoted 
paragraph might be applicable.

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Eliot Lear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:25:07 +0200

Hi Trent,

Thanks for your comments.  Answering you and Dave in one note:

On 7/31/13 1:42 PM, Trent Adams wrote:

> It's probably not clear, but the set of authors who would work on the
> items identified in the proposed DMARC WG Charter are not the same set
> as those who would work on the specification itself.  There is some
> overlap, but the items could easily be handled in parallel rather than
> in series.

Color me paranoid, but we said in the room that there was a need to
close the base spec, and focus should be there now, even if there is no
working group.  People need to have their attention there.  If, as Dave
claims, the job is done, then this will be weeks, not months.  If there
are serious issues, then we'd better fix them.  When it comes to
internationalization, a good review from a person who is competent with
EAI seems in order to figure out if DMARC clears the mark.  While -01 is
considerably better than -00, I need to do a full review as well.

> BTW - Who ultimately decides if a Charter is approved and the WG
> formed?  Now that there was clear consensus in the room for the
> proposed DMARC WG Charter, and we identified volunteers to work on the
> identified work items, what's next?

The IESG approves new working groups or changes to charters.  Barry can
comment further.

>
> And beyond who is making the decision, by what criteria will the
> decision be made?  Now that we've cleared the first hurdle of the BOF,
> I'm just wondering what the next obstacle is. . . or is it just a
> waiting game now as we await the results of the deliberations?
>

I'll leave this to Barry as well.

Eliot

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 16:44:14 +0200

On 7/31/2013 3:25 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> are serious issues, then we'd better fix them.

FWIW, I meant to entirely avoid commenting on the suggestion that the 
base be fully processed before chartering the wg.

Apologies if I didn't succeed in that, but to be clear: I'm not 
expressing an opinion on that procedural suggestion.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Franck Martin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:03:36 -0500 (CDT)

----- Original Message -----
> From: "SM" <[email-masked]>
> To: "Trent Adams" <[email-masked]>, "Eliot Lear" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:29:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [IAB] IETF 87 DMARC BOF evaluation
> 

Indeed it is nice, but in the APPS discussion early this week it was encouraged more transparency in relations to IAB and IESG with the authors. So I guess we are experimenting here this new direction.

>     to me that there is consensus to publish this."

Seems to me the vote and mailing list indicates that the spec is suitable to move forward provided a few more reviews and comments are addressed, i.e. not really the work of a working group. Of course, If something substantial appears, then a WG will be indeed needed.

> (re. first quoted paragraph).

Email operators are coming back to IETF, so I guess we are learning on the way the IETF Fu... I however would suggest it does not matter if anyone was involved or not in the work before the spec came to IETF. I find the method of bringing comments from another list into this list, as if they were the result of an analysis of this list, hmmm, strange....

I think the best course of action here is to review -01.

---

From: Andrew Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:57:42 -0400

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 07:29:10AM -0700, SM wrote:
> Andrew and Eliot posted their IAB messages to this mailing list.
> This is not usually done or required.  It's a nice initiative.

Just to be clear, we did this because the responsible AD asked us to,
and because I had no reason not to do.  There are certainly cases
where I would wish to give confidential advice to the IESG, and I
don't think it would be appropriate under those circumstances to post
the remarks.  

Also, as we can see from the subsequent threads, the follow-on
discussion suggests that people are made anxious by these reports,
partly because they tend to be pretty terse, leaving out all sorts of
subtleties.  (If an AD thought something was being missed, I assure
you s/he'd ask.)  That's important because as I understand it the IESG
is looking for a broad picture from the IAB, not a lot of in depth
review.  They don't have time to read an in depth thing.  So I'm
actually not sure that this is a good long-term plan.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[email-masked]

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 10:44:11 -0400

> Color me paranoid, but we said in the room that there was a need to close
> the base spec, and focus should be there now, even if there is no working
> group.  People need to have their attention there.  If, as Dave claims, the
> job is done, then this will be weeks, not months.  If there are serious
> issues, then we'd better fix them.  When it comes to internationalization, a
> good review from a person who is competent with EAI seems in order to figure
> out if DMARC clears the mark.  While -01 is considerably better than -00, I
> need to do a full review as well.

There will definitely be at least one review targeted at
Internationalization, to determine whether things look OK... or
whether there are real Internationalization issues that need to be
resolved.

As Eliot says, it's likely that the base document could be sent for
IETF Last Call in a relatively short time -- I would actually put it
in months, but a small number of months (say, two-ish).  And, in fact,
I see no burning need to get a charter approved in a hurry.  There's a
mailing list and a charter proposal.  The proposed work can begin
informally at any time.

Because of that, and because there are a few valid concerns about
chartering a working group to do follow-on work on a specification
that's not final, I think the best approach will be to hold the formal
chartering process until the base spec is approved for publication
(though with no need to wait for the RFC to actually come out).

That need cause no significant delay, and will allay fears expressed
by a few people (including some on the IESG and IAB).

> Charter, and we identified volunteers to work on the identified work items,

What's next is that I start the chartering process.  When this mailing
list is happy with the charter text, I can start that off in what we
call "IESG Informal Review".  That will allow anyone to review it, but
doesn't start anything formal.  When it's time for formal review, I
change the state to "Internal Review", and the IESG and IAB have at
it.

When it's approved at that stage, an announcement goes out to the
community (to ietf-announce) and to other SDOs (through the new-work
mailing list), asking for comment, and the state is changed to
External Review.  Usually two weeks later it's up for final approval
by the IESG (with the state changing to IESG Evaluation in the
middle), and, if all goes well, it gets approved.

The time from when Internal Review begins and when final approval
happens is usually on the order of three or four weeks, though it can
vary.

> And beyond who is making the decision, by what criteria will the decision be
> made?

That's hard to say: Usually in the Internal Review stage, ADs can make
all sorts of comments and raise all sorts of issues.  We'll just have
to see how that goes.  External Review doesn't usually result in any
further blocking points, though it's possible.

Barry, Applications AD

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:23:22 -0400

> Just to be clear, we did this because the responsible AD asked us to

Yes, and thank you for doing it.

> actually not sure that this is a good long-term plan.

I think it is.

Perhaps you could develop a preamble, much as some of the directorate
reviews have, that explains the situation.  But I'd like to see most
of the IAB BoF reports sent publicly.

Barry