From nobody Wed Aug 6 10:42:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6896A1A03A4; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 10:06:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8] autolearn=no 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 TYcqQmxHSSrQ; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 10:06:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5122A1A039D; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 10:06:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Alissa Cooper" To: The IESG X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p5 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140806170602.7712.53650.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 10:06:02 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/uwNU2F1NCGr0clEWjNAzkRcjgRw X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 10:42:14 -0700 Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on charter-ietf-dmarc-00-01: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 17:06:04 -0000 Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-dmarc-00-01: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dmarc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- s/could improve could DMARC compatibility/could improve DMARC compatibility/ From nobody Mon Aug 11 11:37:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CE51A06C9; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:54:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001] 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 JDMka3SSKd_0; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:54:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7F21A06CF; Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p5 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140811165402.615.18943.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 09:54:02 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/OT5VSEaqsMiu0spsKSMyNybolko X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 11:37:48 -0700 Cc: dmarc WG Subject: [dmarc-ietf] WG Action: Formed Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2014 16:54:11 -0000 A new IETF working group has been formed in the Applications Area. For additional information please contact the Area Directors or the WG Chairs. Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) ------------------------------------------------ Current Status: Proposed WG Chairs: Ned Freed Tim Draegen Assigned Area Director: Pete Resnick Mailing list Address: dmarc@ietf.org To Subscribe: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc Archive: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/ Charter: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC) uses existing mail authentication technologies (SPF and DKIM) to extend validation to the RFC5322.From field. DMARC uses DNS records to add policy-related requests for receivers and defines a feedback mechanism from receivers back to domain owners. This allows a domain owner to advertise that mail can safely receive differential handling, such as rejection, when the use of the domain name in the From field is not authenticated. Existing deployment of DMARC has demonstrated utility at internet scale, in dealing with significant email abuse, and has permitted simplifying some mail handling processes. However, DMARC is problematic for mail that does not flow from operators having a relationship with the domain owner, directly to receivers operating the destination mailbox (for example, mailing lists, publish-to-friend functionality, mailbox forwarding via ".forward", and third-party services that send on behalf of clients). The working group will explore possible updates and extensions to the specifications in order to address limitations and/or add capabilities. It will also provide technical implementation guidance and review possible enhancements elsewhere in the mail handling sequence that could improve DMARC compatibility. The existing DMARC base specification has been submitted as an Independent Submission to become an Informational RFC. Specifications produced by the working group will ensure preservation of DMARC utility for detecting unauthorized use of domain names, while improving the identification of legitimate sources that do not currently conform to DMARC requirements. Issues based on operational experience and/or data aggregated from multiple sources will be given priority. The working group will seek to preserve interoperability with the installed base of DMARC systems, and provide detailed justification for any non-interoperability. As the working group develops solutions to deal with indirect mail flows, it will seek to maintain the end-to-end nature of existing identifier fields in mail, in particular avoiding solutions that require rewriting of originator fields. Working group activities will pursue three tracks: 1. Addressing the issues with indirect mail flows The working group will specify mechanisms for reducing or eliminating the DMARC's effects on indirect mail flows, including deployed behaviors of many different intermediaries, such as mailing list managers, automated mailbox forwarding services, and MTAs that perform enhanced message handling that results in message modification. Among the choices for addressing these issues are: - A form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit through intermediaries. - Collaborative or passive transitive mechanisms that enable an intermediary to participate in the trust sequence, propagating authentication directly or reporting its results. - Message modification by an intermediary, to avoid authentication failures, such as by using specified conventions for changing the aligned identity. Consideration also will be given to survivable authentication through sequences of multiple intermediaries. 2. Reviewing and improving the base DMARC specification The working group will not develop additional mail authentication technologies, but may document authentication requirements that are desirable. The base specification relies on the ability of an email receiver to determine the organizational domain responsible for sending mail. An organizational domain is the 'base' name that is allocated from a public registry; examples of registries include ".com" or ".co.uk". While the common practice is to use a "public suffix" list to determine organizational domain, it is widely recognized that this solution will not scale, and that the current list often is inaccurate. The task of defining a standard mechanism for identifying organizational domain is out of scope for this working group. However the working group can consider extending the base DMARC specification to accommodate such a standard, should it be developed during the life of this working group. Improvements in DMARC features (identifier alignment, reporting, policy preferences) will be considered, such as: - Enumeration of data elements required in "Failure" reports (specifically to address privacy issues) - Handling potential reporting abuse - Aggregate reporting to support additional reporting scenarios - Alternate reporting channels - Utility of arbitrary identifier alignment - Utility of a formalized policy exception mechanism 3. DMARC Usage The working group will document operational practices in terms of configuration, installation, monitoring, diagnosis and reporting. It will catalog currently prevailing guidelines as well as developing advice on practices that are not yet well-established but which are believed to be appropriate. The group will consider separating configuration and other deployment information that needs to be in the base spec, from information that should be in a separate guide. Among the topics anticipated to be included in the document are: - Identifier alignment configuration options - Implementation decisions regarding "pct" - Determining effective RUA sending frequency - Leveraging policy caching - Various options for integrating within an existing flow - Defining a useful, common set of options for the addresses to which feedback reports are to be sent - When and how to use local policy override options Work Items ---------- Phase I: Draft description of interoperability issues for indirect mail flows and plausible methods for reducing them. Phase II: Specification of DMARC improvements to support indirect mail flows Draft Guide on DMARC Usage Phase III: Review and refinement of the DMARC specification Completion of Guide on DMARC Usage References ---------- DMARC - http://dmarc.org SPF - RFC7208 Authentication-Results Header Field - RFC7001 DKIM - RFC6376 Internet Message Format - RFC5322 OAR / Original Authentication Results - draft-kucherawy-original-authres Using DMARC - draft-crocker-dmarc-bcp-03 Delegating DKIM Signing Authority - draft-kucherawy-dkim-delegate-00 DKIM Third-Party Authorization Label - draft-otis-dkim-tpa-label-03 From nobody Mon Aug 18 08:31:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989EF1A063E; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 08:31:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 DiQbMPa3Wher; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 08:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 966E01A0647; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 08:31:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.117] (24-240-160-218.static.hckr.nc.charter.com [24.240.160.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EA2ACB46; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:31:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Draegen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:31:49 -0400 To: Apps Discuss , dmarc@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/fUAcpbeyxg0a6TtTeHMtNFUM0Is Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:31:56 -0000 Hello world of email, The DMARC WG is getting started [1]. This IETF working group's goal is = to address interoperability issues with indirect email flows, to = document operational practices, and to mature the existing DMARC base = specification. If you would like to join please visit the DMARC WG [2]. The WG's Wiki page [3] documents the approach the WG will take to = produce its deliverables. You can find the roadmap/milestones on the = site [4]. For your convenience, the proposed milestones are: - 91st IETF: Document describing interoperability issues with DMARC = and indirect mail flows. - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to = address). - Feb 2015: draft DMARC Usage Guide - 92nd IETF: Deliverable #2 - Document describing DMARC improvements = to better support indirect mail flows.=20 - May 2015: Deliverable #3 - base spec changes + DMARC Usage Guide If you have comments on the milestones, please provide them by August = 25th. Have fun, =3D- Tim [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/ [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc [3] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki [4] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/roadmap From nobody Mon Aug 18 08:50:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BA291A066F; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 08:50:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 qaAusDFUJ7vb; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 08:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from agwhqht.amgreetings.com (agwhqht.amgreetings.com [207.58.192.4]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5FBE1A0665; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 08:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from USCLES544.agna.amgreetings.com ([fe80::f5de:4c30:bc26:d70a]) by USCLES532.agna.amgreetings.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:50:51 -0400 From: "MH Michael Hammer (5304)" To: Tim Draegen , Apps Discuss , "dmarc@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [apps-discuss] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones Thread-Index: AQHPuvmZqmbuddt63E2frkuXv5j9Z5vWggGg Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:50:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.144.15.221] x-kse-antivirus-interceptor-info: scan successful x-kse-antivirus-info: Clean Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/cZrfq2iUSlZ92HjlMFJUzG2BAp4 Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [apps-discuss] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 15:50:53 -0000 Is the DMARC Usage Guide the same as the BCP or is it a different document?= If it is a different document, is the BCP going to be one of the milestone= s for the WG or is it off the table? Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: apps-discuss [mailto:apps-discuss-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ti= m > Draegen > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 11:32 AM > To: Apps Discuss; dmarc@ietf.org > Subject: [apps-discuss] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones >=20 > Hello world of email, >=20 > The DMARC WG is getting started [1]. This IETF working group's goal is t= o > address interoperability issues with indirect email flows, to document > operational practices, and to mature the existing DMARC base specificatio= n. > If you would like to join please visit the DMARC WG [2]. >=20 > The WG's Wiki page [3] documents the approach the WG will take to produce > its deliverables. You can find the roadmap/milestones on the site [4]. = For > your convenience, the proposed milestones are: >=20 > - 91st IETF: Document describing interoperability issues with DMARC a= nd > indirect mail flows. > - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to > address). > - Feb 2015: draft DMARC Usage Guide > - 92nd IETF: Deliverable #2 - Document describing DMARC improvements > to better support indirect mail flows. > - May 2015: Deliverable #3 - base spec changes + DMARC Usage Guide >=20 > If you have comments on the milestones, please provide them by August > 25th. Have fun, >=20 > =3D- Tim >=20 >=20 > [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/ > [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > [3] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki > [4] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/roadmap >=20 > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss From nobody Mon Aug 18 09:09:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B7481A0699; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:09:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 hQSDKruCtLf8; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC5C91A0696; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 09:09:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.117] (24-240-160-218.static.hckr.nc.charter.com [24.240.160.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 90CDDCB46; Mon, 18 Aug 2014 12:09:27 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tim Draegen In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 12:09:21 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3DDEC5AD-9116-4099-B0F0-E37F745AEE15@eudaemon.net> References: To: Mike Hammer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/A3IFbuCb4EyTer4BccmIXTCMUvM Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , Apps Discuss Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [apps-discuss] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:09:26 -0000 On Aug 18, 2014, at 11:50 AM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) = wrote: > Is the DMARC Usage Guide the same as the BCP or is it a different = document? If it is a different document, is the BCP going to be one of = the milestones for the WG or is it off the table? They are one and the same. From nobody Wed Aug 20 17:15:55 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF051A06C1 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:15:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.868 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.868 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URI_NOVOWEL=0.5] autolearn=no 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 rBHkul3kJmjl for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x230.google.com (mail-yh0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17ADD1A0051 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:15:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f48.google.com with SMTP id i57so7561384yha.21 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:15:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=agari.com; s=s1024; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hQociO6Aj4SAH5eh5iDZc9n0WiuvumXBB3eKAbdb+qU=; b=GUMOW96XG+xF3w/60ASEolLfEKwVdRNHO3Y68T3sCgOCBVSMytDlMOGXUkXxwYgUH+ qDLbIhvWDkHRo3gCMLQ/DmnmblQ9oAxfApFyfHDx7uhyFkNnkpj9J90JQ1CZK9ghzCDG TNyqRV/pvAUFsgy8hiTTFBWSp6YjbqgFTrxVw= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hQociO6Aj4SAH5eh5iDZc9n0WiuvumXBB3eKAbdb+qU=; b=anR2wKjrL6V5iQ3HdMQJADnbaLoQVimYVsWi4gvxHWYV+3LD/LaHKopi31m7YjNj9u zrQZzErxEI0Uu5w+rpoMGjU9hEL+TWK7E36z/i0iccROa+vfrmPTkWFQy3mK2ZOqOz7T SKToRDmxbKP5V1EUjI9MVAWNdY9x6meFGigSQX/sMya3JAfY4w0Nfysb9qYyFSuBzRRp MyD/t+Qs1+tRa2bUEqWDwRBY+rdvNZVGHj8gnXSwitMmD78egv1auJ6vjR8YGoJtA6aR Qf3OktvH9gtQYWpUHOlms4J7kTc5anSdT9L65QbvnOW7t9dC+eOjZ/yM8lR64aKldRY7 355Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn+CoHwdZjUtLJtsq4e0wrh5vH4gvvnJVCSE6XWBsD8iC8dFyidiuA9+Tmkdhs1YLC/Li6b MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.236.101.138 with SMTP id b10mr7034653yhg.91.1408580151274; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.170.116.206 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:15:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:15:51 -0700 Message-ID: From: Mike Jones To: Tim Draegen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf301b606f8e04a90501189fdc Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/hflvatyzqPkNfDaHwxc8cDlP2GM Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , Apps Discuss Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [apps-discuss] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 00:15:54 -0000 --20cf301b606f8e04a90501189fdc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi Tim, The list of milestones and deliverables looks good to me. Having not participated in an IETF working group before, I have process oriented questions. Am I a part of the working group by being a member of the dmarc@ietf.org list? How do I contribute to the working group, will the chairs ask for input at specific times or for volunteers to write specific pieces of documents? How does the working group decide that any given suggestion warrants inclusion in a deliverable or a base spec change or some other action? Thanks, Mike On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > Hello world of email, > > The DMARC WG is getting started [1]. This IETF working group's goal is to > address interoperability issues with indirect email flows, to document > operational practices, and to mature the existing DMARC base > specification. If you would like to join please visit the DMARC WG [2]. > > The WG's Wiki page [3] documents the approach the WG will take to produce > its deliverables. You can find the roadmap/milestones on the site [4]. > For your convenience, the proposed milestones are: > > - 91st IETF: Document describing interoperability issues with DMARC > and indirect mail flows. > - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to > address). > - Feb 2015: draft DMARC Usage Guide > - 92nd IETF: Deliverable #2 - Document describing DMARC improvements > to better support indirect mail flows. > - May 2015: Deliverable #3 - base spec changes + DMARC Usage Guide > > If you have comments on the milestones, please provide them by August > 25th. Have fun, > > =- Tim > > > [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/ > [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > [3] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki > [4] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/roadmap > > _______________________________________________ > apps-discuss mailing list > apps-discuss@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss > -- *Mike Jones, Director of Product Management* *mjones@agari.com l M: 703.728.3978 l www.agari.com Changing Email Security For Good* *l* --20cf301b606f8e04a90501189fdc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Tim,=C2=A0

The list of milestones an= d deliverables looks good to me. Having not participated in an IETF working= group before, I have process oriented questions. =C2=A0

Am I a part of the working group by being a member of the dmarc@ietf.org list?=C2=A0
How do I contribute to the working group, will the chairs ask for inpu= t at specific times or for volunteers to write specific pieces of documents= ?=C2=A0
How does the working group decide that any given suggesti= on warrants inclusion in a deliverable or a base spec change or some other = action?=C2=A0

Thanks,
Mike

=C2=A0<= /div>


On= Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemon.net>= wrote:
Hello world of email,

The DMARC WG is getting started [1].=C2=A0 This IETF working group's go= al is to address interoperability issues with indirect email flows, to docu= ment operational practices, and to mature the existing DMARC base specifica= tion.=C2=A0 If you would like to join please visit the DMARC WG [2].

The WG's Wiki page [3] documents the approach the WG will take to produ= ce its deliverables.=C2=A0 You can find the roadmap/milestones on the site = [4].=C2=A0 For your convenience, the proposed milestones are:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - 91st IETF: Document describing interoperability issues with= DMARC and indirect mail flows.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods= to address).
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Feb 2015: draft DMARC Usage Guide
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - 92nd IETF: Deliverable #2 - Document describing DMARC impro= vements to better support indirect mail flows.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - May 2015: Deliverable #3 - base spec changes + DMARC Usage = Guide

If you have comments on the milestones, please provide them by August 25th.= =C2=A0 Have fun,

=3D- Tim


[1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/
[2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
[3] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki
[4] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/roadmap

_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss



--
Mike Jones, Director of Product Management
--20cf301b606f8e04a90501189fdc-- From nobody Wed Aug 20 23:04:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FA61A8549 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 23:04:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.169 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 ptTpcLeLFkBM for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 23:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8C611A8547 for ; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 23:04:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1375; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1408601078; x=1409810678; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to; bh=f7IDf1fbW7ZUEbBrdG0luAdCxPO8ZRHgaleRHGP1clg=; b=LYKEOqWwQxKUHGjg6NvrKJ+3MXeMJQBJ2jI9EPbSPaZZd5Npcb6280zM 1wJGDwKO2NuqpMEMWPWFKZj8ztGS4Eg5kdFOZ+T2DKn6pvGHOwQL3lanW 8HLgwSvDBzWNsznTmZmS6tpWTiO0VfeQzuhLMkISKaRDdP5o3uEuzQhdM w=; X-Files: signature.asc : 486 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqIEAPyJ9VOtJssW/2dsb2JhbABahzPRLAGBJXeEBAEBBCNVEQshFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwIAQGIPqwplTEXj1OCeYFTAQSTJYFKh1WHLY1dg187gn4BAQE X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,906,1400025600"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="148112761" Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 21 Aug 2014 06:04:34 +0000 Received: from [10.61.209.35] ([10.61.209.35]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s7L64Y3L021728; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 06:04:34 GMT Message-ID: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 08:04:15 +0200 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Draegen , dmarc@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1Wldmtbv6ASCltHQOAfDmLNko9BJeCilG" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/AjvgAtzPOMA7ryZIstW5lhBjEvg Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 06:04:39 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --1Wldmtbv6ASCltHQOAfDmLNko9BJeCilG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tim, One suggestion... On 8/18/14, 5:31 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: > - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to ad= dress). That seems quite short a period between adoption and approval, and I question whether you will get sufficient review at a time when in America there is Thanksgiving, and then in December much of the world takes two weeks off". I'd suggest pushing back one month. Eliot --1Wldmtbv6ASCltHQOAfDmLNko9BJeCilG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJT9YvxAAoJEIe2a0bZ0nozEqQH/RKd6+UG7TdIyimJd/k6QjiX nVS37pKKH/32jsf7nDNzG6NAfRuNhdMiEB51Ih8wVTEHsOqUbOhElvxB55xYHl/S PIIn8xbqLcpqcJWSjJIqm203QCRz5TvotL9YE+grgrxAIUc5s5/ZsvLaYtvMe1EN Y0iDxoVcyPeA/+zIqOLYuCbFd9NyoNOMXGAKboX+BzDEGzz+N0ZTBaHKTlsS1/Z1 c3grd1WK9y1Zq1IfaaIT5TmDgmvqA5Ab+gHlqBQy8lRQwBD7c3EubWZ1sSeX+sST R7rURx/RWzygrNsJOEmVo/KRZxXrCmKopiY+HzcearNRDsAM4/tE1JlEz4z+X7E= =n/wr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1Wldmtbv6ASCltHQOAfDmLNko9BJeCilG-- From nobody Thu Aug 21 13:36:33 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 748231A8A01; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:36:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 X5VtlzagsZsk; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DA691A89FF; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PBN75HA9CW001XFT@mauve.mrochek.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:31:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1408653087; bh=yrvhfNGaR/3GPobPf1G//o/LZb1Lo0s5VGCN8UoTYXs=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:To; b=gnEbvke/vL1Qc1tPRxSoNI+RrOiBKKgo7yY8QNooIhxG0S8EtK4FmyPohzxeM+6E9 KuAzPo2lte853ExlT34vPwNADF1SehZ5f6syKpE64u99+xJthp138R58X3V5xppDG9 cQo2MW59rcN1uGf4hfHwSOcsbKLVLfe6wjS7tSRY= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PBEHSSJOO00000SM@mauve.mrochek.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:31:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: <01PBN75FQ1CQ0000SM@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:25:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:15:51 -0700" Sender: Ned Freed To: Mike Jones Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/PaG0VteWXAtRiN859EXU4P1CbNo Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , Tim Draegen , Apps Discuss Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [apps-discuss] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 20:36:31 -0000 > The list of milestones and deliverables looks good to me. Having not > participated in an IETF working group before, I have process oriented > questions. > Am I a part of the working group by being a member of the dmarc@ietf.org > list? Yes. The IETF doesn't have a concept of membership; you either participate or you don't. > How do I contribute to the working group, will the chairs ask for input at > specific times or for volunteers to write specific pieces of documents? Both of those things will probably happen, but that's in addition to general list discussions on current topics relevant to the goals of the group. > How does the working group decide that any given suggestion warrants > inclusion in a deliverable or a base spec change or some other action? When there's a rough consensus among the participants to do so. Usually it's pretty obvious whether something is supported or not, but it's up to the WG chairs to make the close calls. Ned P.S. You might want to take a look at "The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force", available here: http://www.ietf.org/tao.html From nobody Fri Aug 22 10:30:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287DA1A06C7 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:30:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.671 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 OagaZmS9zjZh for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:30:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D738D1A06C2 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:30:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.117] (24-240-160-218.static.hckr.nc.charter.com [24.240.160.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 755B4CB46; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:30:43 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tim Draegen In-Reply-To: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 13:30:37 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> To: Eliot Lear X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/bFfu3LZDaHZ9kJrTlHMjzZaNiJ4 Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 17:30:45 -0000 On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:04 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >> - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to = address). >=20 > That seems quite short a period between adoption and approval, and I > question whether you will get sufficient review at a time when in > America there is Thanksgiving, and then in December much of the world > takes two weeks off". I'd suggest pushing back one month. Thanks Eliot. The order of the work is the most important thing. When = the WG gets near a milestone and its clear the WG is in the thick of it, = then the milestone will be pushed back. =3D- Tim From nobody Fri Aug 22 11:15:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206B41A06B0 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:15:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 gdY9S4FJl-cG for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:15:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com (mail-wg0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F01791A06A6 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id m15so10778136wgh.5 for ; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:15:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=r/Cz95CvMfTMUo3YnXq50Z9+BuTKIUGXsfEoClnvVIo=; b=c4XDn6iA57U67iQYaS3xltrihGTBHhO574U8I0aUH45y2OUT+1qFa+nSt38y4J/eTo d1TopJuArWwbOS9SbOsHT3rbgJQYi5lLVou6W0qU4xjeritHcYeclVBpKGH22SJ+Phkf 5ImEvFpCacoykYO3sYt3yXjIgSNs0DY4yzYYU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=r/Cz95CvMfTMUo3YnXq50Z9+BuTKIUGXsfEoClnvVIo=; b=TnU9HIwlSXPSiBqBIZjE5RJojhSDzxmr7niPSp2BaGQDiOHPKRkxv0EI7XclUYpRRf XP94TG36f0SLhKSpWRjVbyO/5ReYd0mNLHoOvgJDSt3mc24I3GNNwC7zoffHJDlqO1fg AMPvUU4IqfQRXlkytXrJzbbRHfN26Scr73ilUPqM21h7FA3azAYEM5ZCP03ALPELEY90 u0dt6tphoXloWQeWGik+BUrSs3Rue7P6LRrabcFQI3sTkOgeiyr+TlU+csKjeo6wiYul GGdd58QrsbpUAveBzSLpv8+wEbkMb3xyHAemocxYYY4Cz2ketdWie08KgDa8SHM1jDlY c63A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnb+b8cZq1rcf78sR+kXJ6xvGil16ca+aYwibKh40uPiFBYxOcsHlGchCqpQQicPMvV7zrP MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.20.40 with SMTP id k8mr208467wie.38.1408731342615; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 10.194.237.133 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:15:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:15:42 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: pD4IbYOkrZ4L7hpHmDE4-Rpj17k Message-ID: From: Kurt Andersen To: Tim Draegen , "dmarc@ietf.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53d57af42d4eb05013bd329 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/n12AT-R-aUSA5rBX_oFMS32yvdA Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 18:15:46 -0000 --bcaec53d57af42d4eb05013bd329 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > > The WG's Wiki page [3] documents the approach the WG will take to produce > its deliverables. You can find the roadmap/milestones on the site [4]. > For your convenience, the proposed milestones are: > > - 91st IETF: Document describing interoperability issues with DMARC > and indirect mail flows. > - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to > address). > - Feb 2015: draft DMARC Usage Guide > - 92nd IETF: Deliverable #2 - Document describing DMARC improvements > to better support indirect mail flows. > - May 2015: Deliverable #3 - base spec changes + DMARC Usage Guide > > If you have comments on the milestones, please provide them by August > 25th. > Is there a planned mechanism to draft these documents prior to submitting them as IETF artifacts? There have been various pieces of work scattered around either this list (previously) or the blogosphere to start to characterize deliverable #1. Is there anything stopping us from starting toward #1 already? I think that this is a reasonable working plan, but agree with Eliot's concern that the timing may need to be flexed. (I've dropped appsdiscuss off of the distro for the reply) --Kurt Andersen --bcaec53d57af42d4eb05013bd329 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemon= .net> wrote:

The WG's Wiki page [3] documents the approach the WG will take to produ= ce its deliverables.=C2=A0 You can find the roadmap/milestones on the site = [4].=C2=A0 For your convenience, the proposed milestones are:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - 91st IETF: Document describing interoperability issues with= DMARC and indirect mail flows.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods= to address).
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Feb 2015: draft DMARC Usage Guide
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - 92nd IETF: Deliverable #2 - Document describing DMARC impro= vements to better support indirect mail flows.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 - May 2015: Deliverable #3 - base spec changes + DMARC Usage = Guide

If you have comments on the milestones, please provide them by August 25th.=

Is there a planned mechanism to draft= these documents prior to submitting them as IETF artifacts? There have bee= n various pieces of work scattered around either this list (previously) or = the blogosphere to start to characterize deliverable #1.=C2=A0 Is there any= thing stopping us from starting toward #1 already?

I think that this is a reasonable working plan, but agree with Eliot= 9;s concern that the timing may need to be flexed.

(I'= ;ve dropped appsdiscuss off of the distro for the reply)

--Kurt Andersen

--bcaec53d57af42d4eb05013bd329-- From nobody Sat Aug 23 07:34:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF7B1A0367 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 07:34:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.881 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 6pfZBrpCsSZC for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 07:34:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C6061A035E for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 07:34:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1D3CC0DF for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:34:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 9-9ydKl2pSe0 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:34:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from new-host.home (pool-173-76-155-14.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.155.14]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 55B77CC0D9 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:34:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 10:34:24 -0400 From: Miles Fidelman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: dmarc@ietf.org References: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/PnEgI3n6YkOexmh9p_njhGBkKMk Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 14:34:36 -0000 Tim Draegen wrote: > On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:04 AM, Eliot Lear wrote: >>> - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to address). >> I did notice the absence of anything related to process. How are we going to get to a "document (that) captures all known interoperability issue between DMARC and indirect email flows?" If this were an RFC, there'd be an author or authors identified, maybe a draft to start from. At a minimum, it seems like someone might want to generate an initial outline, and set it up as a wiki where folks can start providing input. Just a thought. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From nobody Sat Aug 23 08:28:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1929F1A03A4 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 08:28:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 oXDpxAwe2Sw6 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 08:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-x22a.google.com (mail-lb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 703C91A02F5 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 08:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id l4so10675173lbv.15 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 08:28:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5+TE+XQ03lWntBdoO7GBj6ZCHQeFX8LTU17FzXmj99w=; b=WLmIfjXLea7dQiJx6FjG6FFsC15PpFqF4q1oYZCKrid5HFz53Q4v4U908O82h8iVUy QpSeaOOwysXi5+chOaHrhS0dIwFgcuLg3XHKErYA4NK2HR5hLJ+2q31tUYh+diQqVZ2B as5D7TsijJM+iopoQu3b6chMgwHHqP0wvoHpH7V6hl7lrL4DKAjV7CfKFQzdzMKopo6v 3wMJWSxbb528Bl04x1VAkuTiikgx+D83jF7U42ObqpKmVv7IIoEauHuFvNl99TA7DH3c tICOZFM/OgbAxvOXUOyYTMS53wHiLXs7tHS6EMu4DYXcEevPfbdS5ChqGPzFvMero8eb ehQw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.78.38 with SMTP id y6mr1890064lbw.94.1408807685514; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 08:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.211.82 with HTTP; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 08:28:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> References: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 08:28:05 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Miles Fidelman Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3db42a6ed9605014d9901 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/msj9F23tK7sz2YqG9rStQnMGpf4 Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:28:09 -0000 --001a11c3db42a6ed9605014d9901 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > I did notice the absence of anything related to process. How are we going > to get to a "document (that) captures all known interoperability issue > between DMARC and indirect email flows?" If this were an RFC, there'd be > an author or authors identified, maybe a draft to start from. > Since in essence we're only talking about milestones, I disagree. I've never seen a set of milestones on a WG charter or otherwise that name specific people who will complete them. For some of these there is indeed a draft to start from, named in the charter. -MSK --001a11c3db42a6ed9605014d9901 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> wrote:
I did notice the absence of anything related= to process.=C2=A0 How are we going to get to a "document (that) captu= res all known interoperability issue between DMARC and indirect email flows= ?"=C2=A0 If this were an RFC, there'd be an author or authors iden= tified, maybe a draft to start from.

Since in essence we're only talking about m= ilestones, I disagree.=C2=A0 I've never seen a set of milestones on a W= G charter or otherwise that name specific people who will complete them.
For some of these there is indeed a dr= aft to start from, named in the charter.

-MSK
--001a11c3db42a6ed9605014d9901-- From nobody Sat Aug 23 09:32:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1CE1A0323 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Cf7omXCKMDZf for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:32:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x234.google.com (mail-qc0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E48491A0386 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f180.google.com with SMTP id l6so12096740qcy.39 for ; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:32:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s2FZuqk62dWou5qs+dO9DShbNxzCbyZGHlXFG37Rcrc=; b=Wv4eoZWxjpliwTObzXebsL35SDR/IlraWKOOvJiqfunrTILzb/G5z6M3geqth6qXER AIml18t/6iN+stWUiW7Cq8nfKhw6J7bsZvAs11xjhxa3KvgOuW2zzAXUgQUNAjv5or25 U/OFFk9pn95rb64iR03BqWZd9kyNDlydkjDW9SiF/bTk5qHNe2Pm0nI9ky7BCJPDVVkC 3ORy3Wy8Lt2Dma9wzpMh1Fro4cIkAIn2YVBQ9FwZbqCLf8TEot/M6hej9+C2GBQ2uP4g 0d9nNy02eoJj205PyqChzTehkFY5pJd6i1zv77jk1gF+rqHG9nS9Za2tWEOUk8ufbz1R pOKg== X-Received: by 10.140.40.84 with SMTP id w78mr17426991qgw.87.1408811574050; Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:32:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.8.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u14sm65300219qac.15.2014.08.23.09.32.52 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53F8C198.6030200@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:30:16 -0700 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" References: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xeT_g2vVUPILTdsXdCOHYLg5EfE Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2014 16:32:56 -0000 On 8/23/2014 8:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Miles Fidelman > > wrote: > > I did notice the absence of anything related to process. How are we > going to get to a "document (that) captures all known > interoperability issue between DMARC and indirect email flows?" If > this were an RFC, there'd be an author or authors identified, maybe > a draft to start from. > > > Since in essence we're only talking about milestones, I disagree. I've > never seen a set of milestones on a WG charter or otherwise that name > specific people who will complete them. Assinging names to tasks in a charter? No, certainly not. On the other hand, a common exercise in a wg organizing bof is to look for a show of hands for interesting in specific topics and willingness to work on them. Perhaps an informal query like that, here, would be useful? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Sun Aug 24 17:36:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5C7B1A88C7 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:36:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 XylUPpcVaQ-7 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC0D1A1F16 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:36:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.15] (97-82-223-101.dhcp.hckr.nc.charter.com [97.82.223.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D593ACB46; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:36:11 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tim Draegen In-Reply-To: <53F8C198.6030200@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:36:06 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> <53F8C198.6030200@gmail.com> To: Dave Crocker X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/NHl_wTnm8zqb5nqmLXs0A78JS-w Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , "Murray S. Kucherawy" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:36:11 -0000 On Aug 23, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > On the other hand, a common exercise in a wg organizing bof is to look > for a show of hands for interesting in specific topics and willingness > to work on them. >=20 > Perhaps an informal query like that, here, would be useful? Yes, I'll post such a query once the milestone discussion is wrapped up. = Working backward from each milestone to identify topics and work items = will surely reveal plenty of work to go around. =3D- Tim From nobody Sun Aug 24 17:48:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3936D1A88C5 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:48:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 WbJu7skwBAtS for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AAB11A6EEA for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 17:48:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.15] (97-82-223-101.dhcp.hckr.nc.charter.com [97.82.223.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8B96CB46; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:48:26 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tim Draegen In-Reply-To: <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 20:48:21 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <47667631-D5A7-4AA2-B778-F72AA56C74F1@eudaemon.net> References: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> To: Miles Fidelman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Pk_sAKJoE1qBxlGpAa40sYdIXYM Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:48:24 -0000 On Aug 23, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Miles Fidelman = wrote: > I did notice the absence of anything related to process. How are we = going to get to a "document (that) captures all known interoperability = issue between DMARC and indirect email flows?" If this were an RFC, = there'd be an author or authors identified, maybe a draft to start from. >=20 > At a minimum, it seems like someone might want to generate an initial = outline, and set it up as a wiki where folks can start providing input. Hi Miles, you're right. There is very little around process today. = Once the milestones discussion has settled (as I probably too briefly = mentioned to Dave Crocker in this thread), Ned and myself will create an = outline of topics and work items that, when worked through, should have = the WG arrive at its deliverables. This outline should give everyone a clear picture and plenty of = opportunity to volunteer. ! =3D- Tim From nobody Sun Aug 24 19:36:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD1DE1A89C0 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:36:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 OasIxLlnbSvU for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x233.google.com (mail-wi0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3098B1A88CE for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:36:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id f8so1861684wiw.6 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:35:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/ryfeSudZWVWtKxsuEdiH0TJQCak5HcFVVeGSaN+pBc=; b=doJpA31X9M0ktVFJibcxSAEJfh4FsvtxqEQ4MrWXWSqq3Tpq3yHrNMkzF6Y8FUSHrX 9CLBIQjNIVrMW08SqQ/CojFNyzEabVTue9Jn2w42gCDa6IVx1yu1z/uhfeC16/fNSuko pdBZERIC01WynYPEHTXKEdQtiymSmWJE29pL4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/ryfeSudZWVWtKxsuEdiH0TJQCak5HcFVVeGSaN+pBc=; b=KIpvQbo9luFf1trpDR0hucxBdSWN8RjQVS0IfkTxKFdMTlbcjwCDBcxVyrpvFv0V1l 42DlwXjcno0HxAUe7M8RI0y0VsjtaBb8+okGryBYsPrw0VmKKQH/pSt38sAuD5ccV6DH StRbMQPJ8nZDe4HdASQjwJ4swofR7RIgS9Fk6VLNOu1x62GUNjL5WE27X3Ta5IVW24PQ Q06cdCtpnOO64LWfm+b4KGmUJ7bdyGFJ1jDcppD8qAhkOi77ctE8SWMbTR9HUZKb/T0H 3F2h5apUFyxB38puuTy6nDrvhc7XyiJ2Var+rW1PBGbjt/PbN9/yX5seRQNvuIlqfLJo SQ2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmIry1N7D3Z24KN5GA1oACWmZauAtwF35YfgD3Sx2dNIvHp6Y9Nv5HkF9KGNDXF4sm6mM5y MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.19.165 with SMTP id g5mr20058938wje.65.1408934158641; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 10.194.237.133 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.237.133 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:35:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <47667631-D5A7-4AA2-B778-F72AA56C74F1@eudaemon.net> References: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> <47667631-D5A7-4AA2-B778-F72AA56C74F1@eudaemon.net> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:35:58 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: wjVP4tgq5dYEuONv13cA8XgpeJA Message-ID: From: Kurt Andersen To: Tim Draegen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b4503ae09c7e305016b0cff Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/PCe3oDXOfY44YuT2HsbaFaNFeoo Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 02:36:02 -0000 --047d7b4503ae09c7e305016b0cff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Aug 24, 2014 5:48 PM, "Tim Draegen" wrote: > > Once the milestones discussion has settled..., Ned and myself will create an outline of topics and work items that, when worked through, should have the WG arrive at its deliverables. > > =- Tim What about adopting a somewhat more agile, less waterfall strategy? --Kurt --047d7b4503ae09c7e305016b0cff Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Aug 24, 2014 5:48 PM, "Tim Draegen" <tim@eudaemon.net> wrote:
>
> =C2=A0 Once the milestones discussion has settled..., Ned and myself w= ill create an outline of topics and work items that, when worked through, s= hould have the WG arrive at its deliverables.
>
> =3D- Tim

What about adopting a somewhat more agile, less waterfall st= rategy?

--Kurt

--047d7b4503ae09c7e305016b0cff-- From nobody Sun Aug 24 19:47:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACE781A89D5 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:47:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.881 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.881 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 wDT7ieYND22J for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D649D1A89D3 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:47:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F429CC044 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 22:47:11 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Ve6oIkuYxnwF for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 22:30:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Miles-Fidelmans-MacBook-Pro.local (static-173-56-67-50.nycmny.fios.verizon.net [173.56.67.50]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0FB4BCC045 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 22:30:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53FA9FAA.3060403@meetinghouse.net> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 22:30:02 -0400 From: Miles Fidelman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 SeaMonkey/2.26.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: dmarc@ietf.org References: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> <47667631-D5A7-4AA2-B778-F72AA56C74F1@eudaemon.net> In-Reply-To: <47667631-D5A7-4AA2-B778-F72AA56C74F1@eudaemon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/KkrxduKThzQGJqtepe0yk-8WRjg Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 02:47:14 -0000 Tim Draegen wrote: > On Aug 23, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >> I did notice the absence of anything related to process. How are we going to get to a "document (that) captures all known interoperability issue between DMARC and indirect email flows?" If this were an RFC, there'd be an author or authors identified, maybe a draft to start from. >> >> At a minimum, it seems like someone might want to generate an initial outline, and set it up as a wiki where folks can start providing input. > Hi Miles, you're right. There is very little around process today. Once the milestones discussion has settled (as I probably too briefly mentioned to Dave Crocker in this thread), Ned and myself will create an outline of topics and work items that, when worked through, should have the WG arrive at its deliverables. > > This outline should give everyone a clear picture and plenty of opportunity to volunteer. ! > > =- Tim Makes sense. I always figure that milestones go hand in hand with approach to the work at hand. With that caveat, milestones look good to me, modulo the comment about holidays. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra From nobody Sun Aug 24 19:52:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 934251A89C7 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:52:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Jp7VhaSk6gGk for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x230.google.com (mail-qa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B00C1A89C1 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id m5so11993715qaj.35 for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=UI/Rb5E0TsEbsJP1UDkVaHqrvEQ++moGB5MDk4PZrE8=; b=T0365CzjidKs1jXH8b4U7p3v0BWfwNDC52OL6ALP/Q1E/Zy6UBzs6nOvRSC9onPlir aotGzfMSFa41/F/9ldNwiqE05hndo0cTSpL7y9Mdc9Znz0GTRXL0e91046anCEX1PJc3 7ipEQ+z2MpKd/9kFNpnL6KoB9Xpgzf6CHfLfIKvmrm0m1Okj3/ceAJRw1OnusiNXXEAV 2G9KBXD08q9mOfcsxqj8yA3xX9C5ig1dOu22UBp+Y3u2Z2eld6DMOVZrNsVGd8/gGHTZ 45phXnVY42kbWQzQS637MENsYlDwoYqseHmqsLEup3c0gxcFCuRGIBqnOePJbrJa1Kv7 Lhmg== X-Received: by 10.224.28.133 with SMTP id m5mr31236741qac.16.1408935157688; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [76.218.8.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 80sm46713581qgr.38.2014.08.24.19.52.35 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53FAA455.5000804@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:49:57 -0700 From: Dave Crocker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Draegen References: <53FA692E.1040503@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <53FA692E.1040503@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/cne3gH1NHJpLUKiJFJv-lLNRz-w Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [apps-discuss] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 02:52:39 -0000 On 8/24/2014 3:37 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > If you have comments on the milestones, please provide them by August 25th. Have fun, So, obviously I read the wrong text carefully. Sorry. Was so zoned into doing a series of reviews I forgot that the wg was already chartered, and no it doesn't get changed for editing improvements after that. Oh boy. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Sun Aug 24 21:09:31 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3D771A89FB for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:09:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 u0dEb-moFQ_r for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from v2.bluepopcorn.net (v2.bluepopcorn.net [IPv6:2607:f2f8:a994::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DC191A89DF for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:bfe:440e:40d3:5c85:a117] ([IPv6:2001:470:1f05:bfe:440e:40d3:5c85:a117]) (authenticated bits=0) by v2.bluepopcorn.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id s7P49JKG009222 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:09:25 -0700 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=bluepopcorn.net; s=supersize; t=1408939766; bh=4Z8oAinxNWZ91OpqaN8z6OJV1PBT6VgrENOivXMnt7o=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kbQ19t3ih6RG3L6Ii6ZASqNKJBmeJt3ttlRrm2DXx1DP9Ci6LepKEO8GM63womlpg pCfaZ1maSGpsEBC6UfipI/S1T/EAbSatAsl8Q5cJLUmVXKQDgEh3erj1Bfi0iFiY3U BwZlgKnm5FgPZdsFgkMwvt8uGcl7U5Bg0KOlRKsA= Message-ID: <53FAB6EF.5030101@bluepopcorn.net> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:09:19 -0700 From: Jim Fenton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmarc@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/h3E62Pxq1xbVEHt8PLRGhHQKOFQ Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 04:09:29 -0000 [dropping apps-discuss from this reply] On 08/18/2014 08:31 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > Hello world of email, > > The DMARC WG is getting started [1]. This IETF working group's goal is to address interoperability issues with indirect email flows, to document operational practices, and to mature the existing DMARC base specification. If you would like to join please visit the DMARC WG [2]. > > The WG's Wiki page [3] documents the approach the WG will take to produce its deliverables. You can find the roadmap/milestones on the site [4]. For your convenience, the proposed milestones are: > > - 91st IETF: Document describing interoperability issues with DMARC and indirect mail flows. > - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to address). > - Feb 2015: draft DMARC Usage Guide > - 92nd IETF: Deliverable #2 - Document describing DMARC improvements to better support indirect mail flows. > - May 2015: Deliverable #3 - base spec changes + DMARC Usage Guide With all the discussion about interoperability issues, DMARC issues, etc. I have lost sight of what the status of the specification itself is. Is there still intent to pursue it through the independent submission path or is it to become a WG document? If so, I don't see it (except possibly as "base spec changes" in Deliverable #3). In any case, I don't see how you can write deliverable #1 without a normative reference to the specification itself, and therefore I'm unclear on how #1 would be published. -Jim From nobody Sun Aug 24 21:10:01 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 874DA1A89FB for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:09:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 1QQG6hUeQ-8S for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4D2E1A89FF for ; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.15] (97-82-223-101.dhcp.hckr.nc.charter.com [97.82.223.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0979CB46; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:09:46 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_CE2DA436-A836-48EF-BAE4-0414F0CCEF45" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tim Draegen In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:09:41 -0400 Message-Id: References: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> <47667631-D5A7-4AA2-B778-F72AA56C74F1@eudaemon.net> To: Kurt Andersen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/_g-9GeDvaI4icHhffzgV3qC9LBM Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 04:09:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_CE2DA436-A836-48EF-BAE4-0414F0CCEF45 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 24, 2014, at 10:35 PM, Kurt Andersen wrote: > > Once the milestones discussion has settled..., Ned and myself will = create an outline of topics and work items that, when worked through, = should have the WG arrive at its deliverables. > > > > =3D- Tim >=20 > What about adopting a somewhat more agile, less waterfall strategy? >=20 Kurt, although I don't see this WG as a product development exercise = (where agile and its bugbear waterfall tend to live), I think you're = touching on something that should be clarified. There are a few challenges in play that will make this WG difficult: the = email community is vast (because the deployment base is almost = ubiquitous), email has been around for a long time (and there probably = isn't an upgrade cycle), and the WG is focused on understanding and = addressing DMARC's impact on indirect email flows (which means we're not = likely to hear from people where impact is near zero). Against this backdrop/problem-space, the order of the milestones is = important. Obviously, the latter milestones are informed by the earlier = ones.. BUT, there's a nuance in play due to the enormity of the problem = space. The milestones will allow the WG to solicit participation from = the email community for specific topics/work-items without requiring = full-time participation for the next 9+ months. This work has to remain = accessible. So, the WG will maintain an "official focus" that will track the = milestones to allow for wider participation. That said, work on items = that are ahead of the official focus (or even behind if something is = overlooked and important) is most definitely encouraged, because it = doesn't make sense to nip constructive work in the bud just to follow = process. The only caveat I can think of is that topics/work-items will = necessarily remain open until the WG officially focuses on them (again = with the aim of inviting wide participation). I hope the above is an acceptable compromise between remaining agile = with respect to work items while keeping a schedule for those of that = require an explicit time & place to be productive. =3D- Tim --Apple-Mail=_CE2DA436-A836-48EF-BAE4-0414F0CCEF45 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii On Aug = 24, 2014, at 10:35 PM, Kurt Andersen <kboth@drkurt.com> = wrote:

>   Once the milestones = discussion has settled..., Ned and myself will create an outline of = topics and work items that, when worked through, should have the WG = arrive at its deliverables.
>
> =3D- Tim

What about adopting a somewhat = more agile, less waterfall = strategy?


Kurt, although I don't = see this WG as a product development exercise (where agile and its = bugbear waterfall tend to live), I think you're touching on something = that should be clarified.

There are a few challenges = in play that will make this WG difficult: the email community is vast = (because the deployment base is almost ubiquitous), email has been = around for a long time (and there probably isn't an upgrade cycle), and = the WG is focused on understanding and addressing DMARC's impact on = indirect email flows (which means we're not likely to hear from people = where impact is near zero).

Against this = backdrop/problem-space, the order of the milestones is important. =  Obviously, the latter milestones are informed by the earlier = ones.. BUT, there's a nuance in play due to the enormity of the problem = space.  The milestones will allow the WG to solicit participation = from the email community for specific topics/work-items without = requiring full-time participation for the next 9+ months.  This = work has to remain accessible.

So, the WG will = maintain an "official focus" that will track the milestones to allow for = wider participation.  That said, work on items that are ahead of = the official focus (or even behind if something is overlooked and = important) is most definitely encouraged, because it doesn't make sense = to nip constructive work in the bud just to follow process.  The = only caveat I can think of is that topics/work-items will necessarily = remain open until the WG officially focuses on them (again with the aim = of inviting wide participation).

I hope the = above is an acceptable compromise between remaining agile with respect = to work items while keeping a schedule for those of that require an = explicit time & place to be productive.

=3D- = Tim

= --Apple-Mail=_CE2DA436-A836-48EF-BAE4-0414F0CCEF45-- From nobody Mon Aug 25 00:08:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E0C1A8862; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:40:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.8 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 L8Uia8QzsZlh; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 016611A885E; Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:40:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7OMeC0s031556 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:40:16 -0700 Message-ID: <53FA692E.1040503@dcrocker.net> Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:37:34 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Draegen , Apps Discuss , dmarc@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sun, 24 Aug 2014 15:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Yp4KvM89p736rSYyWUPl3e8Zmlo X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 00:08:06 -0700 Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] [apps-discuss] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 22:40:21 -0000 On 8/18/2014 8:31 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > If you have comments on the milestones, please provide them by August 25th. Have fun, Mostly small, suggested wording tweaks, to improve clarity and possibly avoid some unnecessary points of controversy. There's one (???) with a change I think is correct. If it isn't the reason needs to be made explicit. > [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/ > Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC) > uses existing mail authentication technologies (SPF and DKIM) to > extend validation to the RFC5322.From field. DMARC uses DNS records to extend -> and extends DKIM and SPF don't do the extending. DMARC does. DKIM and SPF are merely underpinnings. > to add policy-related requests for receivers and defines a feedback > mechanism from receivers back to domain owners. This allows a domain > owner to advertise that mail can safely receive differential > handling, such as rejection, when the use of the domain name in the > From field is not authenticated. Existing deployment of DMARC has > demonstrated utility at internet scale, in dealing with significant internet -> Internet > email abuse, and has permitted simplifying some mail handling > processes. However, DMARC is problematic for mail that does not flow for mail that does not flow -> for indirect mail flows that are not > from operators having a relationship with the domain owner, directly directly -> and directl ('direct' vs. 'indirect' is an essential issue and the terminology needs to be established here, to make the late use clear.) > to receivers operating the destination mailbox (for example, mailing mailbox ( for mailing -> mailbox. Examples include mailing > lists, publish-to-friend functionality, mailbox forwarding via > ".forward", and third-party services that send on behalf of clients). > The working group will explore possible updates and extensions to the > specifications in order to address limitations and/or add specifications -> specifications > capabilities. It will also provide technical implementation guidance > and review possible enhancements elsewhere in the mail handling > sequence that could improve DMARC compatibility. > > The existing DMARC base specification has been submitted as an > Independent Submission to become an Informational RFC. > > Specifications produced by the working group will ensure preservation > of DMARC utility for detecting unauthorized use of domain names, hmmm. on reflection, this works better as a positve: utility for detecting authorized use of domain names Use for detecting unauthorized use is far more complicated and potentially controversial. Use for detecting authorized use is straightforward. > while improving the identification of legitimate sources that do not > currently conform to DMARC requirements. Issues based on operational > experience and/or data aggregated from multiple sources will be given > priority. > > The working group will seek to preserve interoperability with the > installed base of DMARC systems, and provide detailed justification > for any non-interoperability. As the working group develops solutions > to deal with indirect mail flows, it will seek to maintain the > end-to-end nature of existing identifier fields in mail, in > particular avoiding solutions that require rewriting of originator > fields. > > Working group activities will pursue three tracks: > > 1. Addressing the issues with indirect mail flows > > The working group will specify mechanisms for reducing or eliminating > the DMARC's effects on indirect mail flows, including deployed delete [the] > behaviors of many different intermediaries, such as mailing list > managers, automated mailbox forwarding services, and MTAs that > perform enhanced message handling that results in message handling that -> handling, which (if only to reduce the number of 'that's in the sentence...) > modification. Among the choices for addressing these issues are: > > - A form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit > through intermediaries. > > - Collaborative or passive transitive mechanisms that enable an > intermediary to participate in the trust sequence, propagating > authentication directly or reporting its results. > > - Message modification by an intermediary, to avoid authentication > failures, such as by using specified conventions for changing > the aligned identity. > > Consideration also will be given to survivable authentication through > sequences of multiple intermediaries. > > 2. Reviewing and improving the base DMARC specification > > The working group will not develop additional mail authentication > technologies, but may document authentication requirements that are document authentication -> document additional authentication (???) > desirable. If they are 'desireable' they are not 'requirements'. If they are requirements they are not merely desirable. Perhaps: but can consider additional authentication-related issues that are desirable. > The base specification relies on the ability of an email receiver to > determine the organizational domain responsible for sending mail. An > organizational domain is the 'base' name that is allocated from a > public registry; examples of registries include ".com" or ".co.uk". > While the common practice is to use a "public suffix" list to > determine organizational domain, it is widely recognized that this > solution will not scale, and that the current list often is > inaccurate. The task of defining a standard mechanism for identifying > organizational domain is out of scope for this working group. However > the working group can consider extending the base DMARC specification > to accommodate such a standard, should it be developed during the > life of this working group. > > Improvements in DMARC features (identifier alignment, reporting, > policy preferences) will be considered, such as: > > - Enumeration of data elements required in "Failure" reports > (specifically to address privacy issues) > - Handling potential reporting abuse > - Aggregate reporting to support additional reporting scenarios > - Alternate reporting channels > - Utility of arbitrary identifier alignment > - Utility of a formalized policy exception mechanism > > 3. DMARC Usage > > The working group will document operational practices in terms of > configuration, installation, monitoring, diagnosis and reporting. It > will catalog currently prevailing guidelines as well as developing > advice on practices that are not yet well-established but which are > believed to be appropriate. > > The group will consider separating configuration and other deployment > information that needs to be in the base spec, from information that > should be in a separate guide. > > Among the topics anticipated to be included in the document are: > > - Identifier alignment configuration options > - Implementation decisions regarding "pct" > - Determining effective RUA sending frequency > - Leveraging policy caching > - Various options for integrating within an existing flow > - Defining a useful, common set of options for the addresses to > which feedback reports are to be sent > - When and how to use local policy override options > > Work Items > ---------- > > Phase I: > > Draft description of interoperability issues for indirect mail > flows and plausible methods for reducing them. > > Phase II: > > Specification of DMARC improvements to support indirect mail flows > > Draft Guide on DMARC Usage > > Phase III: > > Review and refinement of the DMARC specification > > Completion of Guide on DMARC Usage > > References > ---------- > > DMARC - http://dmarc.org DMARC -> DMARC general Add: DMARC - https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/ so there is an explicit reference to the specification. > SPF - RFC7208 > Authentication-Results Header Field - RFC7001 > DKIM - RFC6376 > Internet Message Format - RFC5322 > OAR / Original Authentication Results - > draft-kucherawy-original-authres > Using DMARC - draft-crocker-dmarc-bcp-03 > Delegating DKIM Signing Authority - draft-kucherawy-dkim-delegate-00 > DKIM Third-Party Authorization Label - draft-otis-dkim-tpa-label-03 > [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > [3] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki > [4] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/roadmap -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Mon Aug 25 03:18:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B48701A8BC1 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:18:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 VtOBl2tk0tKD for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from segv.crash.com (segv.crash.com [IPv6:2001:470:1:1e9::4415]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5E671A8BBF for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.10.41] (70-36-157-26.static.sonic.net [70.36.157.26]) (authenticated bits=0) by segv.crash.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/cci-colo-1.6) with ESMTP id s7PAIirI032158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:18:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from smj@crash.com) X-DKIM: OpenDKIM Filter v2.4.3 segv.crash.com s7PAIirI032158 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=crash.com; s=20130426; t=1408961930; bh=k+h1poWOgX/YQQRTKT4DARbAr6tZqGDvGczSEsJ6qiw=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=bBwf7aN1BdJQJ/M12CCoE7J0ylXJ2/6BSrhqmddejmIXZM7IYaWEMHnd4AaHM2Br4 ufKWfbKziJriLQXQ6u6bAhNajzLp3HevRO7dPq0bK9ygbrre9pD7Ysn8WOqBsii6/2 zqitreKMxxHYI/Lr/w5ET6EitW7seic/3e7IH/gw= X-Authentication-Warning: segv.crash.com: Host 70-36-157-26.static.sonic.net [70.36.157.26] claimed to be [10.10.10.41] Message-ID: <53FB0D87.8080700@crash.com> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 03:18:47 -0700 From: Steven M Jones Organization: Crash Computing, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dmarc@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/WxFuMfVcg8hEQ0DS5sCl4oGZn2g Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:18:55 -0000 I agree with most of the commentary I've seen in this thread. I just wanted to highlight one milestone: > - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to address). > - 92nd IETF: Deliverable #2 - Document describing DMARC improvements to better support indirect mail flows. So that's delivery of #2 during the last week of March, 2015, or about eight months from now. And roughly three months after Deliverable #1, including possible methods to address interop issues, is delivered. How much "running code"[1] is Deliverable #2 supposed to reflect? Even bearing in mind Tim's note about not being too limited by "waterfalling," we'd want to have solidly identified the mechanisms to be tested well before the holiday season - especially given lead times for larger organizations/operators, where it might take three months just to implement and package any changes. I know this is all pretty flexible at this stage, so again I'm just wondering if at this stage we have a notion of whether and/or how much operational experience we expect to inform Deliverable #2? Either way, I'm glad to see us moving forward. --Steve. [1] Dr. Dave Clark, http://www.ietf.org/tao.html, etc. I always thought it was "rough consensus and working code," glad I checked. From nobody Mon Aug 25 07:52:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6DA11A9087 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.378 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 RS-V5YSP9Izk for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6239D1A89A3 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id q58so13372695wes.21 for ; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=drkurt.com; s=20130612; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2ejvhqZj0LLAIC7OEu/MByIRwOL4xRDSZppUuNv4nZY=; b=ezDCCZEYpZ+TbjWF81+Fla6ZN4Z3ZH1H32ND+ryqklxiddpRnDQ8YRahRgOQQ2JKYi xxmEB9lgw5PQQ+utYkAtwDXkPEWJvroxhIPTZMjBKVowG4pFqvw/AyPwQ7EfmSabI/q8 R8rvlk/RdKsXWxl5VCinHz9/ZgqIxoW+ze/Hk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2ejvhqZj0LLAIC7OEu/MByIRwOL4xRDSZppUuNv4nZY=; b=H90/+luXJXcnQviGVrYLUkjkxki0Z8/QnfsGv94U9P3BTwclt2QrBzQOdMHL3lfknv GO1JqDvuYd/6b0dTEX0o2FyjfgDA6tCTMQ4UK1MPdPHLT+56DufpfQLjUeDU6T0qNtCw C+wH7htdnZLBOUl9kaFdrqakjzNVnNG/7LpvLqBFNJM0jJX3yPMnSK5YZQXtO7ifcyQ7 93sUjE3UJyQYu+c4GN/8cXX56dQFIAvdWurLZtBHUASBLBif2oS7EkFL6MJK0pxm+lOF 1itS1rbKhgvExgbMcWuTXLL0eXgwq/je/2fYFq59M6V5HKMW/C4lAB2VrTbt8v5UHJDt EzlA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnx4NqMdHla7Zl1caJqgCtrzUGF6FpMnIM2cbkDYdeTbZTUGflYPMRIsqa/A2xOs4I2teoy MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.103.41 with SMTP id ft9mr9426673wjb.93.1408978341981; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kurta@drkurt.com Received: by 10.194.237.133 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> <47667631-D5A7-4AA2-B778-F72AA56C74F1@eudaemon.net> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:52:21 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Cc1cZWDRcsU_OKsM0xD-o2oFhRs Message-ID: From: Kurt Andersen To: Tim Draegen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0102d9129211af050175555e Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/6rZehwn-aNQb7diXtCtcShJKNkQ Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:52:27 -0000 --089e0102d9129211af050175555e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: > > On Aug 24, 2014, at 10:35 PM, Kurt Andersen wrote: > > > Once the milestones discussion has settled..., Ned and myself will > create an outline of topics and work items that, when worked through, > should have the WG arrive at its deliverables. > > > > =- Tim > > What about adopting a somewhat more agile, less waterfall strategy? > > > So, the WG will maintain an "official focus" that will track the > milestones to allow for wider participation. That said, work on items that > are ahead of the official focus (or even behind if something is overlooked > and important) is most definitely encouraged, because it doesn't make sense > to nip constructive work in the bud just to follow process. The only > caveat I can think of is that topics/work-items will necessarily remain > open until the WG officially focuses on them (again with the aim of > inviting wide participation). > > I hope the above is an acceptable compromise between remaining agile with > respect to work items while keeping a schedule for those of that require an > explicit time & place to be productive. > That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the detail. --Kurt --089e0102d9129211af050175555e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemon= .net> wrote:

On Aug 24, 2014, at 10:35 PM, Kurt Andersen <kboth@drkurt.com> wrote:

> =C2=A0 Once the milestones discussion has settled..., Ned and myself w= ill create an outline of topics and work items that, when worked through, s= hould have the WG arrive at its deliverables.
>
> =3D- Tim

<= p dir=3D"ltr" style=3D"font-family:Thonburi;font-size:12px;font-style:norma= l;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:= normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:nor= mal;word-spacing:0px"> What about adopting a somewhat more agile, less waterfall strategy?


So, the WG will maintain an "= official focus" that will track the milestones to allow for wider part= icipation. =C2=A0That said, work on items that are ahead of the official fo= cus (or even behind if something is overlooked and important) is most defin= itely encouraged, because it doesn't make sense to nip constructive wor= k in the bud just to follow process. =C2=A0The only caveat I can think of i= s that topics/work-items will necessarily remain open until the WG official= ly focuses on them (again with the aim of inviting wide participation).

I hope the above is an acceptable compromise between re= maining agile with respect to work items while keeping a schedule for those= of that require an explicit time & place to be productive.

That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for t= he detail.

--Kurt
--089e0102d9129211af050175555e-- From nobody Tue Aug 26 17:09:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35B151A006A for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:09:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.269 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.269 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 HGXIp-Xy15XW for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:09:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabertooth02.qualcomm.com (sabertooth02.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8816B1A0114 for ; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:09:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1409098162; x=1440634162; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=zcYeY0CFzctWOmRdv5mh82j1V56XoW85Ea+nGJo/f0M=; b=VPbwkXajd4hBZqdT8TpOGB1ip0FNqc3q7KB/vV0SlCDVCJqU8jh0DMir I5WwWZEpjXPFiZ3l1ZeiPZWIYhwOiu6iQsG8v6O+jgX35k61PxPpKqNPD n5qO+LiNEYVhkER+ArYu9sgca9ecXmNr/it+4oCHPIlK9gYrKbUPxAxXS k=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7542"; a="73559441" Received: from ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.183]) by sabertooth02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 26 Aug 2014 17:09:21 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,407,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="30441543" Received: from nasanexhc04.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.17]) by ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 26 Aug 2014 17:09:21 -0700 Received: from presnick-mac.local (172.30.48.1) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.48.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:09:19 -0700 Message-ID: <53FD21AE.5050808@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:09:18 -0700 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Draegen References: <53F58BDF.1050904@cisco.com> <53F8A670.7080905@meetinghouse.net> <47667631-D5A7-4AA2-B778-F72AA56C74F1@eudaemon.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.48.1] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/XL4qcR63ymjCO1F1ImYecZMho0g Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Kurt Andersen Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 00:09:23 -0000 On 8/24/14 9:09 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: > So, the WG will maintain an "official focus" that will track the > milestones to allow for wider participation. That said, work on items > that are ahead of the official focus (or even behind if something is > overlooked and important) is most definitely encouraged, because it > doesn't make sense to nip constructive work in the bud just to follow > process. The only caveat I can think of is that topics/work-items > will necessarily remain open until the WG officially focuses on them > (again with the aim of inviting wide participation). Sure, but.... When the IESG reviewed this charter, we agreed to the three different "phases" for a reason: Dealing with the Indirect Mail Flow issue is a pretty contained task. We were inclined not to have the WG start diving into ratholes right out of the gate. The Usage Guide is a bit more of an open-ended discussion than Indirect Mail Flow, and the Spec Review could be a *big* discussion. Having a huge thread trying to sort a really juicy issue for a later phase can really suck the energy out of work on a current topic. So we wanted to give the chairs the ability to say, "Thanks, that issue is definitely something we need to consider for the Spec Review, but let's toss that in the issue list for now and delay discussion of it until we're done with the current discussion." I definitely don't want work on future phase stuff ignored, but I also hope that we'll all be willing to hold off when the chairs say, "Not right now." pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From nobody Thu Aug 28 08:17:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF65E1A0462 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:52:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 iN2B9ckYjiDU for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:52:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3EDF1A0467 for ; Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:52:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dmarc@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p5 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 06:52:48 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Qq-ZGV9eeYyOzxRGb0bGYM2OwKs X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:17:30 -0700 Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 13:52:52 -0000 URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/ From nobody Fri Aug 29 09:51:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86F41A066A for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:51:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 Xuj4V0A1291N for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:51:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A8D81A0667 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:51:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1409331075; x=1440867075; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t7BeYEhQwpOfYWrJba0e/OomMwmN1NjYIJxsYI1/JVU=; b=RtuuMD51XFU5tLVEO5kaSdWn5pJfol4YNLrqVtBd+dRJQ680rfwMPIYY IA7jTf0rM7JdTFrC8ZhPgeJA3kT7m2sGmv/vzBI67v3IXT/ux0qWKi+zf PEEc7tA7/97AT0J1nOba1x4/j04u7IsPmfY9COvRBdK2n24Mjzo00NABK s=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7545"; a="153111467" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2014 09:51:15 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,425,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="740734184" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 29 Aug 2014 09:51:14 -0700 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:50:49 -0700 Message-ID: <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:50:43 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Draegen , Ned Freed References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/kk9XVOzmHrV8jzBhc-R2Ux58mVI Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:51:17 -0000 On 8/28/14 8:52 AM, IETF Secretariat wrote: > URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/ > Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]: While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for internal WG management (and in fact I think you could even add more of them), I think for the external-facing milestones on the charter page, you should have the more common externally visible milestones like "initial draft of X" or "submission of completed document Y to the IESG", etc. That work for you? pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From nobody Fri Aug 29 10:35:58 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3861A06B9 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:35:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 cwhXTKl_NiRY for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302EB1A06B8 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.117] (24-240-160-218.static.hckr.nc.charter.com [24.240.160.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1495CCB46; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:35:56 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tim Draegen In-Reply-To: <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:35:51 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> To: Pete Resnick X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/QlA7mCuxcM1Vs5HtSO_nDOmf9qA Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Ned Freed Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:35:57 -0000 On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnick = wrote: > Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]: >=20 > While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for = internal WG management (and in fact I think you could even add more of = them), I think for the external-facing milestones on the charter page, = you should have the more common externally visible milestones like = "initial draft of X" or "submission of completed document Y to the = IESG", etc. >=20 > That work for you? Yes it does. I'll rework the external-facing milestones to perhaps = remove some confusion. =3D- Tim From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:00:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28DB1A0706 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:59:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 WHKFQRt9BsxB for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:59:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D084D1A0712 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:59:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dmarc@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p5 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140829175943.19963.78364.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 10:59:43 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/eFKFKwfUWwWfixfN0z2Zt0aOTjA X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:00:39 -0700 Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:59:45 -0000 Deleted milestone "Document interop issues with DMARC and indirect email flows". Deleted milestone "Draft DMARC Usage Guide". URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/ From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:06:23 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9F41A0894 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:06:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 EimdjNamxoab for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:06:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B55861A0722 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:06:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1409335580; x=1440871580; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H0GR+uuspGusScrMnRh+gAkKmfIBXrFL7uj9bpekPOQ=; b=a6fmSUmSB13c0qpqr/7PsLMEPv9XEWWAvHAN3ow5HqV6Uq37pn2lNXH8 hA30EnXzqoIC469t4cmnf11uR9dP/wT6C0OB2AIVCDaL6yCNFQpKqeEes BMibfqDTGUpYVimqgeRJ6tGhkF2Hn6s7m1ns1G+BBPe21byjfo13LR/3d w=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7545"; a="61635291" Received: from ironmsg01-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.180]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2014 11:06:05 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,425,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="31181193" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by ironmsg01-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 29 Aug 2014 11:06:04 -0700 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:06:03 -0700 Message-ID: <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:06:01 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Draegen References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> In-Reply-To: <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/KLzkpekcim943tabIdrQRoHQzLk Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Ned Freed Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:06:21 -0000 On 8/29/14 12:35 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: > On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > >> Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]: >> >> While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for internal WG management (and in fact I think you could even add more of them), I think for the external-facing milestones on the charter page, you should have the more common externally visible milestones like "initial draft of X" or "submission of completed document Y to the IESG", etc. >> >> That work for you? >> > Yes it does. I'll rework the external-facing milestones to perhaps remove some confusion. > Are you OK with the following edits? Dec 2014 Complete draft on DMARC interop issues + possible methods to address Mar 2015 Complete draft on DMARC improvements to better support indirect email flows May 2015 Complete draft on DMARC Usage Guide May 2015 Complete draft on changes to DMARC base spec (That is, separating out the two documents from the May date, and rewording them a bit.) If so, I can make the changes as I approve them. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:10:59 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED1D81A0894 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:10:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 0LZqojzEX_l2 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:10:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D859B1A0ACB for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:10:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.117] (24-240-160-218.static.hckr.nc.charter.com [24.240.160.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 382CDCB46; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:10:48 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tim Draegen In-Reply-To: <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:10:43 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <770E37AC-2619-427C-AD69-360B457734F0@eudaemon.net> References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> To: Pete Resnick X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Tc1AQQnttsO1ZzVrgsLFwze2XaI Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Ned Freed Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:10:56 -0000 On Aug 29, 2014, at 2:06 PM, Pete Resnick = wrote: > Are you OK with the following edits? >=20 > Dec 2014 Complete draft on DMARC interop issues + possible methods = to address > Mar 2015 Complete draft on DMARC improvements to better support = indirect email flows > May 2015 Complete draft on DMARC Usage Guide > May 2015 Complete draft on changes to DMARC base spec >=20 > (That is, separating out the two documents from the May date, and = rewording them a bit.) >=20 > If so, I can make the changes as I approve them. Yes! From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:14:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4DDA1A078D for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:12:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 gghy6xfemjwJ for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6E941A0137 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7TICa1J007315 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:12:39 -0700 Message-ID: <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:09:46 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pete Resnick , Tim Draegen References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/a56oUK_mtXP8IF24UuBLKoQQs74 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:14:42 -0700 Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Ned Freed Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:12:43 -0000 On 8/29/2014 11:06 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: > Dec 2014 Complete draft on DMARC interop issues + possible methods to > address > Mar 2015 Complete draft on DMARC improvements to better support > indirect email flows > May 2015 Complete draft on DMARC Usage Guide > May 2015 Complete draft on changes to DMARC base spec Not clear to me what "draft on DMARC improvements..." means. Is it a spec, a design discussion, or what? I'm also wondering about the implied overlap of work, cased on the close proximity of the final milestones. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:17:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC4B31A0B0D for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:16:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 CxBPrrPOHYYy for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:16:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 001231A0AE2 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PBY8KV2AE80022IM@mauve.mrochek.com> for dmarc@ietf.org; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:10:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1409335849; bh=wT8g1ldDNpV/tguZf3tFPAljqGlWFtiZkPqnd0z0/wg=; h=Cc:Date:From:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=GVEnSM5RmzvWvHsO32Z3DHUc/xmpRBG22LgeeUojmnzMJahu4Ky54/KV+hAViOgwT dVycrddKp2uWMobcu+fbzvjPq/mRPfQKFGqaQsW4Bmbd8ty30/ojiahrPXOTOvlC6W Bs0P/3vwazQC6y5skJ681mCWrvT0FxyMZh7SudJc= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; format=flowed Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PBX2AJI5TC0000XZ@mauve.mrochek.com>; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:10:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: <01PBY8KT0CHC0000XZ@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:08:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Ned Freed In-reply-to: "Your message dated Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:06:01 -0500" <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> To: Pete Resnick Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Z6ukWyGwN6cUSkk8qB57C2lV_eM X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:17:05 -0700 Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Tim Draegen , Ned Freed Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:16:27 -0000 > On 8/29/14 12:35 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > > > >> Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]: > >> > >> While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for internal WG management (and in fact I think you could even add more of them), I think for the external-facing milestones on the charter page, you should have the more common externally visible milestones like "initial draft of X" or "submission of completed document Y to the IESG", etc. > >> > >> That work for you? > >> > > Yes it does. I'll rework the external-facing milestones to perhaps remove some confusion. > > > Are you OK with the following edits? > Dec 2014 Complete draft on DMARC interop issues + possible methods to > address > Mar 2015 Complete draft on DMARC improvements to better support > indirect email flows > May 2015 Complete draft on DMARC Usage Guide > May 2015 Complete draft on changes to DMARC base spec > (That is, separating out the two documents from the May date, and > rewording them a bit.) > If so, I can make the changes as I approve them. Is "complete draft" the usual way these things are done now? It used to be that you list WGLC, LC, RFC published for each. I have to say I like this approach a lot better. Less bureaucracy. As for the substance, it looks fine to me. Ned From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:20:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 235361A6F52 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:20:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 XaHFMGr4INyO for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:20:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D4131A08BE for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:18:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1409336289; x=1440872289; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HyzmbgQdWtq9VDAdjTodRcdDeUYn658fTBqpB5UFkjk=; b=rkQhuA4fUbKfBkG+9Zga+z1iH6YkonYfInuyGhIdSkkr5kA5ewlld1CW WNu7y7PPiBH4K4UtwZau2/UaHD6p3kgvkZRwODvJvF4Px1hK3BCurDMUg ZEgLhfsFy+SxOB6p21pqIBeeoIG2GX84ZvS9vSoaNVe/ghK6QU8ztEFKX k=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7545"; a="153183597" Received: from ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.183]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2014 11:18:08 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,425,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="30462316" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by ironmsg02-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 29 Aug 2014 11:18:08 -0700 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:18:06 -0700 Message-ID: <5400C3DE.4030509@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:18:06 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/y2Hu1zw9XZzowc4YuXIyA6d1zC8 Cc: Tim Draegen , dmarc@ietf.org, Dave Crocker , Ned Freed Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:20:47 -0000 On 8/29/14 1:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Not clear to me what "draft on DMARC improvements..." means. Is it a > spec, a design discussion, or what? > Good point: Mar 2015 Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better support indirect email flows > I'm also wondering about the implied overlap of work, cased on the close > proximity of the final milestones. > The dates I will leave to the WG and the chairs to work out how they wish to manage. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:27:46 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF831A0ACA for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:27:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 fv1552zU9YsH for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:27:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EAF11A6F97 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:23:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1409336616; x=1440872616; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ww2l9wOCp4LxRztkr08hUWGGd3ogq9V8wCNsjT49mvg=; b=akEE22TPeon38V0ASgAmVqMvzsApCztdGZ3guDdeCBoHCuX0jMvK2YCT bG15Lh5WDoJFApxsVooauTG0iyS2b8/8XXUTNUQH4/LQEHQ3MpQ5+VkYs v0fmYvcvdCTyuckn5c4YaH6R7U84JZu01Z7E/DcB/Xi/vKq/w/ugrKWfO g=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7545"; a="73138486" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2014 11:23:36 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,425,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="740780687" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 29 Aug 2014 11:23:35 -0700 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:23:34 -0700 Message-ID: <5400C526.8070707@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:23:34 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ned Freed References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <01PBY8KT0CHC0000XZ@mauve.mrochek.com> In-Reply-To: <01PBY8KT0CHC0000XZ@mauve.mrochek.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/paU8w0t7ut4ixjmeCLQHTmBA3gg Cc: Tim Draegen , dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:27:37 -0000 On 8/29/14 1:08 PM, Ned Freed wrote: > Is "complete draft" the usual way these things are done now? It used > to be > that you list WGLC, LC, RFC published for each. Different groups do them different ways. I'm partial to just listing the "complete draft", since LC and RFC published are dependent on parties other than the WG. I take "complete draft" to mean "WGLC complete and submitted to the IESG". The other thing I like about "complete draft" in this case is that it leave it to the WG whether to publish a particular draft or not. For example, I can imagine the WG deciding, "You know what: We're going to include enough of the discussion of interop issues and why we chose particular methods in the actual specification document, so there's no point in actually submitting the first draft as an RFC; it can just be an internal document." Or obviously the WG could choose to publish it because it *does* have important info for the community. Either way, you can make that decision independent of the milestone. > I have to say I like this approach a lot better. Less bureaucracy. Me too. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:28:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEE01A0B71 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:26:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 dc71v3nM_aq8 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A1831A0B01 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7TIMVxG008115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:22:34 -0700 Message-ID: <5400C43C.7090208@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:19:40 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Draegen References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> <5400C3DE.4030509@qti.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <5400C3DE.4030509@qti.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Q5g0ujovvnfPpC6DwufFdY4_ZJk X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:28:21 -0700 Cc: Pete Resnick , dmarc@ietf.org, Ned Freed Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:26:33 -0000 On 8/29/2014 11:18 AM, Pete Resnick wrote: > The dates I will leave to the WG and the chairs to work out how they > wish to manage Merely as a possible tool for figuring out the major milestones, perhaps the external choices should wait for the more detailed inward set of dates? Those will give a clearer sense of the wg focus on different topics at different times. d/ ps. I agree with Ned's comment about the benefit of keeping the public milestones few and simple. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:33:27 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F03E81A6F0B for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:33:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 VbuhB44FBRho for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:33:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0807A1A6F60 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.117] (24-240-160-218.static.hckr.nc.charter.com [24.240.160.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E8E1CB46; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tim Draegen In-Reply-To: <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:29:55 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <07ECE7F7-8997-4693-BFDC-92487BFD3285@eudaemon.net> References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> To: dcrocker@bbiw.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/c_BGEHsLRo3_yPLjYemRKEIp1jQ Cc: Pete Resnick , dmarc@ietf.org, Ned Freed Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:33:25 -0000 On Aug 29, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > I'm also wondering about the implied overlap of work, cased on the = close > proximity of the final milestones. The final milestones represent parallel work efforts -- and hopefully = they're different enough from each other that they can progress = independently. One deals with operational best practice, the other with the tech spec. From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:34:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E04811A0A94 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:34:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 2QTZyf85nYGe for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com (wolverine01.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB9A51A0B77 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:32:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1409337134; x=1440873134; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RFckSNitP+FOYwrLPfKdpERWVg2W7k2Y1vllzamy6Og=; b=kbyU+8abXMnx8vEufxcXUh+4elsFwYSynu/25oXuvcYLr/Uc2kK1+/C0 +D8Iead6flb9OonGvqv2Oov4fsVxlovdG8FkntoBcQSSQdq/ABq4XXcNP 7A5Ma65bMsc4ePlAYUmYfw6sL+j1NwNd/JbBm7moMv6sS8HQzw7HTqKcR M=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7545"; a="61657755" Received: from ironmsg01-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.180]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 29 Aug 2014 11:32:14 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,425,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="31181474" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by ironmsg01-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 29 Aug 2014 11:32:08 -0700 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:31:47 -0700 Message-ID: <5400C712.5070009@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:31:46 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> <5400C3DE.4030509@qti.qualcomm.com> <5400C43C.7090208@dcrocker.net> In-Reply-To: <5400C43C.7090208@dcrocker.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/jqggvgsPJD8dRxTYHDnhPlbAaq8 Cc: Tim Draegen , dmarc@ietf.org, Dave Crocker , Ned Freed Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:34:44 -0000 On 8/29/14 1:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: > Merely as a possible tool for figuring out the major milestones, perhaps > the external choices should wait for the more detailed inward set of > dates? Those will give a clearer sense of the wg focus on different > topics at different times. > I do prefer to have *something* listed on the charter page now, even if those dates are spitballs and likely to be updated once the WG gets its legs under it. With the current tools, the chairs can update those dates any time they see fit without having to go back to the AD, so they are by no means set in stone (or even very wet cement). pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:36:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AC6B1A0AD9 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:36:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 e_kIf4NmnJNp for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004BE1A0B0C for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:34:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: dmarc@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.6.2.p5 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140829183412.9629.42182.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:34:12 -0700 From: IETF Secretariat Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/n6Fk5oFpbHa8_vUQmG0XvmRC1Qw Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 18:36:02 -0000 Changed milestone "Deliverable #1 (DMARC interop issues + possible methods to address)", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone, set description to "Complete draft on DMARC interop issues + possible methods to address". Changed milestone "Deliverable #2 (DMARC improvements to better support indirect email flows)", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone, set description to "Complete draft specification of DMARC improvements to better support indirect email flows". Changed milestone "Deliverable #3 (changes to DMARC base spec + DMARC Usage Guide", set state to active from review, accepting new milestone, set description to "Complete draft DMARC Usage Guide". Added milestone "Complete draft on changes to DMARC base spec", due May 2015. URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/ From nobody Fri Aug 29 12:08:41 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67671A6F2E for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:08:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 uWFXd63dtcdZ for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x230.google.com (mail-pd0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87DE31A6F3B for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id g10so1036041pdj.21 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:07:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=YxaPHm28PE0kRoLluhU7WdiYHvmmqELcfuUpb1qnPhw=; b=UGjijw2i9iDT4XtKoM6CX7B48FE1JXYKqJcFJQU9+JgfX0ixJVxjxMFTAE2l/Hcz1S bjszvpIMiadU46CshemyGVxnmbhRgS2ax1q0CIt7rOwn5u+OLmm1LjXm0vuHXstADV+Y 9i4SN3T1OZ+Rm8I3AshnTV034HwFIw++Qf+HK0IRQOelMW2JjSmlWgxmf/YuRcIXjvCd O6frXGkuFf6Fr18dYi72laa3NsnLyd43/BO60REWgKPtAR26f1no9PYCQQ4bvEVeANS6 jwSF8HYLrkOcYrCsg1ri43/SucqOn/kgV5xxmoEpuauRqCCiPZF7+wH7dA2bz4cIxR3u hvPw== X-Received: by 10.70.126.34 with SMTP id mv2mr17951850pdb.115.1409339245006; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:07:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.54] (107-0-5-6-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.0.5.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id na5sm677162pbc.22.2014.08.29.12.07.23 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:07:24 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_92FE8DD1-16BD-478A-912F-70E3AA8F010B" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Douglas Otis In-Reply-To: <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:07:21 -0700 Message-Id: <6BE3A8AD-349E-4F22-A810-D15F7EB933DE@gmail.com> References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> To: Pete Resnick X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/vk5rmfEY0x7A3C_MsmUd35p-Rc0 Cc: dmarc@ietf.org, Tim Draegen , Ned Freed , Douglas Otis Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG (public suffix exclusion) X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:08:37 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_92FE8DD1-16BD-478A-912F-70E3AA8F010B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Pete Resnick = wrote: > On 8/29/14 12:35 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: >> On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnick = wrote: >> =20 >>> Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]: >>>=20 >>> While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for = internal WG management (and in fact I think you could even add more of = them), I think for the external-facing milestones on the charter page, = you should have the more common externally visible milestones like = "initial draft of X" or "submission of completed document Y to the = IESG", etc. >>>=20 >>> That work for you? >>> =20 >> Yes it does. I'll rework the external-facing milestones to perhaps = remove some confusion. >> =20 >=20 > Are you OK with the following edits? >=20 > Dec 2014 Complete draft on DMARC interop issues + possible methods = to address > Mar 2015 Complete draft on DMARC improvements to better support = indirect email flows > May 2015 Complete draft on DMARC Usage Guide > May 2015 Complete draft on changes to DMARC base spec Dear Pete, The charter statement indicates work on a public suffix concept is = out-of-scope. This is fine provided the definition used in the charter = is retained: "An organizational domain is the 'base' name that is allocated from a = public registry;"=20 With the "root" of domains being the top-most element, an organizational = domain therefore exists immediately below that of the registry (or that = of the registrar's domain). Any other arrangement would create an = unmanageable situation.=20 Those playing the role of registering or as registrar is determined by = assigned international organizations managing these functions. While = some may insist they should be able to offer some role of registrar to = establish higher granularity for organizational domains, only those so = authorized as a registrar can be recognized as playing that role. This = means only the defined organizational domain is able to subsequently = increased granularity below their domain by way of their policy = assertions. Such policy assertions should be a matter handled within = the WG as related to organizational domain policy. Regards, Douglas Otis --Apple-Mail=_92FE8DD1-16BD-478A-912F-70E3AA8F010B Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Pete = Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>= ; wrote:

On 8/29/14 12:35 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnick<presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>= ;  wrote:
  
Tim/Ned = [Ccing WG]:

While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki = are great for internal WG management (and in fact I think you could even = add more of them), I think for the external-facing milestones on the = charter page, you should have the more common externally visible = milestones like "initial draft of X" or "submission of completed = document Y to the IESG", etc.

That work for you?
=     
Yes it does.  I'll rework = the external-facing milestones to perhaps remove some confusion.
=   

Are you OK with the following = edits?

Dec 2014    Complete draft on DMARC interop = issues + possible methods to address
Mar 2015 =    Complete draft on DMARC improvements to better support = indirect email flows
May 2015    Complete draft on = DMARC Usage Guide
May 2015    Complete draft on = changes to DMARC base spec

Dear = Pete,

The charter statement = indicates work on a public suffix concept is out-of-scope.  This is = fine provided the definition used in the charter is = retained:

"An organizational domain is the = 'base' name that is allocated from a public = registry;" 

With the "root" of domains = being the top-most element, an organizational domain therefore exists = immediately below that of the registry (or that of the registrar's = domain).  Any other arrangement would create an unmanageable = situation. 

Those playing the role of = registering or as registrar is determined by assigned international = organizations managing these functions.  While some may insist they = should be able to offer some role of registrar to establish higher = granularity for organizational domains, only those so authorized as a = registrar can be recognized as playing that role.  This means only = the defined organizational domain is able to subsequently increased = granularity below their domain by way of their policy assertions. =  Such policy assertions should be a matter handled within the WG as = related to organizational domain = policy.

Regards,
Douglas = Otis

= --Apple-Mail=_92FE8DD1-16BD-478A-912F-70E3AA8F010B-- From nobody Fri Aug 29 12:37:43 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39E9B1A012D for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:37:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 noauZ3Yh8pgA for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD9C81A0708 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:37:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.117] (24-240-160-218.static.hckr.nc.charter.com [24.240.160.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F579CB46; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:37:41 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5B8632BC-DB42-4642-9C7D-4E908124BD4F" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tim Draegen In-Reply-To: <6BE3A8AD-349E-4F22-A810-D15F7EB933DE@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:37:35 -0400 Message-Id: References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <6BE3A8AD-349E-4F22-A810-D15F7EB933DE@gmail.com> To: Douglas Otis X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ryt6Aygyd2YmbUkN82k_6KC3qoc Cc: Pete Resnick , dmarc@ietf.org, Ned Freed Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG (public suffix exclusion) X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:37:41 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_5B8632BC-DB42-4642-9C7D-4E908124BD4F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: > The charter statement indicates work on a public suffix concept is = out-of-scope. This is fine provided the definition used in the charter = is retained: [snip] > Such policy assertions should be a matter handled within the WG as = related to organizational domain policy. Hi Doug. I'm not Pete but you're writing about the charter's scope and = so I'll jump in. Simply put, the public suffix concept is useful beyond what DMARC = requires of it. The best that DMARC can do (as a piece of technology) = is fully articulate 1 specific use case for the public suffix concept, = and hope that other use cases get fleshed out enough so that a viable = solution can be crafted by something other than this WG. The closest DMARC comes to discussing policy assertions between = organizational domain policy and "everything below the organization" = shows up in 1) the DMARC record discovery mechanism (that is, look at = direct domain first and if nothing is there then look for a record at = the "organizational domain") and 2) the DMARC options of "p=3D" and = "sp=3D". How number 1 and 2 are used in operation -- as it's not = exactly clear to the casual reader -- can be captured and explored in = the operational-facing Usage Guide document. I hope this describes how = the WG will tackle what you've brought up. =3D- Tim --Apple-Mail=_5B8632BC-DB42-4642-9C7D-4E908124BD4F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii On Aug = 29, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@gmail.com> = wrote:
The charter statement indicates work on = a public suffix concept is out-of-scope.  This is fine provided the = definition used in the charter is = retained:
[snip]
 Such policy assertions should be a matter handled within the = WG as related to organizational domain = policy.

Hi Doug.  I'm not Pete but = you're writing about the charter's scope and so I'll jump = in.

Simply put, the public suffix concept is = useful beyond what DMARC requires of it.  The best that DMARC can = do (as a piece of technology) is fully articulate 1 specific use case = for the public suffix concept, and hope that other use cases get fleshed = out enough so that a viable solution can be crafted by something other = than this WG.

The closest DMARC comes to = discussing policy assertions between organizational domain policy and = "everything below the organization" shows up in 1) the DMARC record = discovery mechanism (that is, look at direct domain first and if nothing = is there then look for a record at the "organizational domain") and 2) = the DMARC options of "p=3D" and "sp=3D".   How number 1 and 2 are = used in operation -- as it's not exactly clear to the casual reader -- = can be captured and explored in the operational-facing Usage Guide = document.  I hope this describes how the WG will tackle what you've = brought up.

=3D- = Tim

= --Apple-Mail=_5B8632BC-DB42-4642-9C7D-4E908124BD4F-- From nobody Fri Aug 29 12:58:16 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1171A04A9 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:58:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 VuWvv42-gJDn for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x235.google.com (mail-la0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FB691A0176 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id s18so3354690lam.12 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:58:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=184D6Y+tQYr6mzKhR/8Kz9FmxpKTTosAN0L29cr6T5o=; b=pfkx6nmKS3kcwZq3yYKbw7sk6f0SZ6JFpGK/iXQX1ku30FmQs/ZVAYOxIC3bCKcZnB rJTUUEtCYLteHcWTV2V09gtJAY07sYyYx8JrIYiXLck5KeSpG6/WP0LdWe39keIsPs1O Lecw06AeNp+kGj5SWZ4DxQ9CP3PfqvSRdrH3rdlttdsJvTfYGjZyJfggrWWpeoYbeL97 fVWybeIEwXn2qeYkjKXA5g1OWdRNL+Wh5QumG+1U3S250ImvDOWHc1U9GYUkD41O6z8X 2L/gOltY+AylLSmdConGr7z/KPRrk9+6uD17TbOAm1/V/lFUmgVmRwv0skUpv7R/Xzwu lMng== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.36.73 with SMTP id o9mr13221466laj.88.1409342291480; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.211.82 with HTTP; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:58:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <6BE3A8AD-349E-4F22-A810-D15F7EB933DE@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:58:11 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Tim Draegen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160adf8a6950f0501ca12e1 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/dRVJHKeNCMJKTapsANECmebZQ0M Cc: Pete Resnick , "dmarc@ietf.org" , Ned Freed , Douglas Otis Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG (public suffix exclusion) X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:58:15 -0000 --089e0160adf8a6950f0501ca12e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: > Simply put, the public suffix concept is useful beyond what DMARC requires > of it. The best that DMARC can do (as a piece of technology) is fully > articulate 1 specific use case for the public suffix concept, and hope that > other use cases get fleshed out enough so that a viable solution can be > crafted by something other than this WG. > There's also a mailing list where this is being discussed (dbound@ietf.org) as a thing independent of DMARC, and it was the subject of a BoF in Atlanta (I believe) and at least a couple of APPSAWG presentations in the past, so I expect it will get its own Working Group once there's critical mass and a problem statement. This WG should adjust (or be able to adjust) to use whatever that group produces, but not go further than that. -MSK --089e0160adf8a6950f0501ca12e1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Tim Draegen <tim@eudaemo= n.net> wrote:
Simply p= ut, the public suffix concept is useful beyond what DMARC requires of it. = =C2=A0The best that DMARC can do (as a piece of technology) is fully articu= late 1 specific use case for the public suffix concept, and hope that other= use cases get fleshed out enough so that a viable solution can be crafted = by something other than this WG.

There's also a mailing list where this= is being discussed (dbound@ietf.org= ) as a thing independent of DMARC, and it was the subject of a BoF in Atlan= ta (I believe) and at least a couple of APPSAWG presentations in the past, = so I expect it will get its own Working Group once there's critical mas= s and a problem statement.=C2=A0 This WG should adjust (or be able to adjus= t) to use whatever that group produces, but not go further than that.

-MSK
--089e0160adf8a6950f0501ca12e1-- From nobody Fri Aug 29 13:25:30 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03BAB1A6F67 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:25:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 pxI4KJdynZsL for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639051A067F for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 13:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.2.117] (24-240-160-218.static.hckr.nc.charter.com [24.240.160.218]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9446DCB52 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:25:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Draegen Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 16:25:24 -0400 To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/eVgSwnrKJ6yMCmmA6EHvEya_P-0 Subject: [dmarc-ietf] How we'll produce deliverables. And we're starting now! X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:25:28 -0000 The working group's five milestones [1] all involve the production of = documentation. To meet each milestone, the working group will follow a = simple process: Collect ideas/issues, edit into document form, review, = and then publish (and not necessarily as official IETF documents). To make sure the WG can focus on generating the best possible output, = the actual writing/editing of documentation will fall to two editors. = Henrik Schack and Tomki Camp will act as these editors for the first = milestone, which is to catalog all known interoperability issues between = DMARC and indirect email flows. The WG Wiki will be used in the = development of the document [2]. With that said, the immediate WG topic is to collect all known = interoperability issues between DMARC and indirect email flows. Please = post your issues, and the editors will begin their work. Tighten your shoelaces, =3D- Tim [1] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/roadmap [2] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/MilestoneOneWiki From nobody Fri Aug 29 19:13:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507321A86FA for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:13:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 t2aEE7c7ph7z for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com (mail-pa0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77DA91A86F9 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id ey11so7695693pad.35 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:13:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=4HzZp/F116WXDJr+6aZd++m+kqXb6pi6vW54FOcwnIo=; b=ipxp01zg70kidKwuVn+VyO1b+o1t7qK7Ie7AFaFhMF8hQW4T5x8WlOxM0et8xKDErW TZ7DnrENjpcClrEdXs4g2ljL3fiAyhwdNA2iD+Pwpfbb5xZO1XuKq5Fwe/JdKGkN4yNb SgPv5AO5wu872Egd5Ah3+ZtVEt/jqVEGd5EWuOzEs0zp4FvV128JeSjuR2gLPiaV4dUZ OR+zhfu+xEJ0k42eW2sE6WMTJCo/78xekvKBpJkS0tX2d7SSq0AO5TYayxfuxYyg1ABH leqs5rz5Y6Wv9DYaXmj9nNj45kdrfHIZPvF5CwMMIz4B4YDD4v8b9lSnlFokMaHiXg9i FMtw== X-Received: by 10.66.222.169 with SMTP id qn9mr18473695pac.85.1409364824170; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.54] (107-0-5-6-ip-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [107.0.5.6]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qz2sm4967186pab.27.2014.08.29.19.13.42 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:13:43 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_848C741B-272C-4A9B-AF9C-DF0FF11B02B2" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Douglas Otis In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 19:13:40 -0700 Message-Id: References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <6BE3A8AD-349E-4F22-A810-D15F7EB933DE@gmail.com> To: "Murray S. Kucherawy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/sDPrtu20arts4eRl0t56tHexd6o Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , Pete Resnick , Tim Draegen , Ned Freed Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG (public suffix exclusion) X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:13:46 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_848C741B-272C-4A9B-AF9C-DF0FF11B02B2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy = wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Tim Draegen = wrote: > Simply put, the public suffix concept is useful beyond what DMARC = requires of it. The best that DMARC can do (as a piece of technology) = is fully articulate 1 specific use case for the public suffix concept, = and hope that other use cases get fleshed out enough so that a viable = solution can be crafted by something other than this WG. >=20 > There's also a mailing list where this is being discussed = (dbound@ietf.org) as a thing independent of DMARC, and it was the = subject of a BoF in Atlanta (I believe) and at least a couple of APPSAWG = presentations in the past, so I expect it will get its own Working Group = once there's critical mass and a problem statement. This WG should = adjust (or be able to adjust) to use whatever that group produces, but = not go further than that. Dear Murray and Tim, While the PSL might be useful for offering some web related assertions, = its current form is inappropriate for email policy. Those working on = the web/email related issues might hope these common concerns will = engender enough synergy to formalize a published list of registrar = domains. Such a list would certainly minimize policy discovery = overhead. Unfortunately, something this simple is not likely being = discussed. A discussion that seems to be more behind closed doors. Great care must be exercised to ensure DMARC policy does not create = accountability gaps or overlaps. The ONLY practical means this can be = ensured is to use the definition made in the DMARC charter. This means = vendors offering services will need to "close" the gap between the = domain they themselves registered, and that of the subdomain they offer = customers. Only the domain formally registered with a registrar must be = considered authoritative. There is simply no practical alternative for = establishing an appropriate authority. Authors of a PSL lack authority = and have already created authority gaps and overlaps. Regards, Douglas Otis --Apple-Mail=_848C741B-272C-4A9B-AF9C-DF0FF11B02B2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Murray = S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com> = wrote:

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Tim = Draegen <tim@eudaemon.net> wrote:
Simply put, the public suffix concept is = useful beyond what DMARC requires of it.  The best that DMARC can = do (as a piece of technology) is fully articulate 1 specific use case = for the public suffix concept, and hope that other use cases get fleshed = out enough so that a viable solution can be crafted by something other = than this WG.

There's also a mailing list where this = is being discussed (dbound@ietf.org) as a thing = independent of DMARC, and it was the subject of a BoF in Atlanta (I = believe) and at least a couple of APPSAWG presentations in the past, so = I expect it will get its own Working Group once there's critical mass = and a problem statement.  This WG should adjust (or be able to = adjust) to use whatever that group produces, but not go further than = that.

Dear Murray = and Tim,

While the PSL might be useful for = offering some web related assertions, its current form is inappropriate = for email policy.  Those working on the web/email related issues = might hope these common concerns will engender enough synergy to = formalize a published list of registrar domains.  Such a list would = certainly minimize policy discovery overhead.  Unfortunately, = something this simple is not likely being discussed.  A discussion = that seems to be more behind closed = doors.

Great care must be exercised to ensure = DMARC policy does not create accountability gaps or overlaps.  The = ONLY practical means this can be ensured is to use the definition made = in the DMARC charter.  This means vendors offering services will = need to "close" the gap between the domain they themselves registered, = and that of the subdomain they offer customers.  Only the domain = formally registered with a registrar must be considered authoritative. =  There is simply no practical alternative for establishing an = appropriate authority.  Authors of a PSL lack authority and have = already created authority gaps and = overlaps.

Regards,
Douglas = Otis



= --Apple-Mail=_848C741B-272C-4A9B-AF9C-DF0FF11B02B2-- From nobody Fri Aug 29 20:39:29 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140AD1A700E for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:39:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.103 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 9wY5Q7u8Yay0 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B845B1A700C for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87439D04624; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:39:25 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1409369965; bh=6Yjgl5Aknb3+SqKmGxs4+puEbWpsV26fAa5Nd0uhLoM=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:From; b=TA00SWQcr4hLQUZ1Bz7uT+gx2qjzXaFQWsYFJAuCHmsA5Ji54dq7iFLxf9OyrltuT LOO76+Ir1aGUfZBMoZ2I9b7ejBPSOVBW+Oy4xdTOCVC3PhUUE7r2qepE0mLfu0mWNm iASWaGP5m4KnybLQQsI2qX6/5Bb5OUYrPNIBradM= Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5AD2DD04535; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:39:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Kitterman To: "dmarc@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 23:39:24 -0400 Message-ID: <5640766.9itaAbt4HU@scott-latitude-e6320> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-34-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/FgYYmpj-UHYZRdLDIZ2PYNCz-q0 Subject: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 issue X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 03:39:28 -0000 Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list for issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ... The definition of "fo" in Section 5.2, General Record Format, allows both values of "0" and "1" to be specified. It was suggested to me offlist that this might not be appropriate, so I thought it worth a discussion. Does anyone who's implemented "fo" have a problem with both "0" and "1" being specified? If it is somehow problematic, then the base spec ought to say so. Scott K From nobody Fri Aug 29 22:52:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D7551A876B for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:52:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265] autolearn=no 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 OEUpCNFIwpL0 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3492D1A8761 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2014 22:52:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A36EF1C3A14; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:52:04 +0900 (JST) Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9596A1A281D; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:52:04 +0900 (JST) From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" To: Pete Resnick In-Reply-To: <5400C3DE.4030509@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> <5400C3DE.4030509@qti.qualcomm.com> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" acf1c26e3019 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:52:04 +0900 Message-ID: <87wq9qa5iz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/lfBlgMZbhtN0dFO8_nsROZcnB5c Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 05:52:08 -0000 Pete Resnick writes: > Good point: > > Mar 2015 Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better > support indirect email flows Up to this point the discussion on the dmarc mailing list has focused on alternative channels (Otis's TPA-labels, Kucherawy-Crocker's DKIM-Delegate) for communicating authorization, not changes to DMARC. Given that *all* of these specifications focus on authorization rather than denial with the single exception of DMARC's p=reject/quarantine, it's not obvious to me that improvements to DMARC are needed/feasible beyond acknowledging existence of other authorization protocols to which recipient policy may give precedence. How about s/DMARC improvements/protocol improvements/ ? If necessary, a nod to "including changes to DMARC" could be added. From nobody Sat Aug 30 02:11:02 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDB801A88F3 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:11:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 gLUS78F3emvk for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x22c.google.com (mail-la0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FA8C1A88F1 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:10:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id hz20so3876412lab.31 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:10:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=g3IA/WHInXPxsCPTSB+WMa8p2fHGJsCyItC5NkF05aw=; b=YaokSsofjbjoxSfQQSDlZHRCMy+0+R+vKQ8M4y3ShTmLRImONCh/KGj+71IfPDuIvp LdhZHvAffdQJ2y53bIZPuvlptj9Qus2FATRh7OvRmW9uGhqklD01n4jZuAqOaed4cfas D2fUNyh68fZeqwPm+ssxJfNZIzv7x9vfl4gIYRSMF18vyag0lkce5iHbJ6QgL+quTFIl vpe2gWCMZb/REsPBNTeZiRd41f33Po0vVTQo+HPYyvn+g5ohJc+8rtMp7AEj096o2xjV /gjZ1leaxQcT/VxJ7jAwd52eSOHq9a4n7eUpzXw8Z+/f453MW+6elTGOTthaN+EYHyo0 N8eQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.20.41 with SMTP id k9mr16065610lae.57.1409389857714; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:10:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.211.82 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:10:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <6BE3A8AD-349E-4F22-A810-D15F7EB933DE@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 02:10:57 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" To: Douglas Otis Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01493e18d1b7780501d5255b Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/4dM-OC2yUCQL8m8QCKjcZ52cq8A Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG (public suffix exclusion) X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 09:11:00 -0000 --089e01493e18d1b7780501d5255b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: > While the PSL might be useful for offering some web related assertions, > its current form is inappropriate for email policy. Those working on the > web/email related issues might hope these common concerns will engender > enough synergy to formalize a published list of registrar domains. Such a > list would certainly minimize policy discovery overhead. Unfortunately, > something this simple is not likely being discussed. A discussion that > seems to be more behind closed doors. > This is old news, I think. Nobody is advocating use of the PSL other than as a temporary measure until a more robust solution is available. Even the DMARC base draft says so, and has for a very long time. There's nothing happening behind closed doors here. -MSK --089e01493e18d1b7780501d5255b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Douglas Otis <doug.m= tview@gmail.com> wrote:
While th= e PSL might be useful for offering some web related assertions, its current= form is inappropriate for email policy. =C2=A0Those working on the web/ema= il related issues might hope these common concerns will engender enough syn= ergy to formalize a published list of registrar domains. =C2=A0Such a list = would certainly minimize policy discovery overhead. =C2=A0Unfortunately, so= mething this simple is not likely being discussed. =C2=A0A discussion that = seems to be more behind closed doors.

This is old news, I think.=C2=A0 Nobody is= advocating use of the PSL other than as a temporary measure until a more r= obust solution is available.=C2=A0 Even the DMARC base draft says so, and h= as for a very long time.

There's nothing happening behind closed doors here.
<= /div>

-MSK
--089e01493e18d1b7780501d5255b-- From nobody Sat Aug 30 07:00:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F3FC1A032C for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:00:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 vimC4KWVmo6l for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:00:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wolverine02.qualcomm.com (wolverine02.qualcomm.com [199.106.114.251]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DBAC71A0329 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:00:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1409407213; x=1440943213; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Wl/JRiZgGqOBpwinVRO15dOklCnv1nkklBiJf6SEXSE=; b=qZh8ncdfo+P77S67/b6hheFf903z2Pb1A9LHuKe1xtoG/PBXA4Ohhh2T h79rB9dV/TiWD737vPxTTgsEa9G+em1bsBQbNZjrQpP/8HSr837jj5EpU Ty/YSYMoCPnZuiXXndqy/WYsRXSgufWHh6KDZ07d0oPW+z1Q6M8kshFyD I=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7545"; a="153846145" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by wolverine02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 30 Aug 2014 06:59:54 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,431,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="741388209" Received: from nasanexhc08.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.7]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 30 Aug 2014 06:59:53 -0700 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 06:57:08 -0700 Message-ID: <5401D832.2@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:57:06 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> <5400C3DE.4030509@qti.qualcomm.com> <87wq9qa5iz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <87wq9qa5iz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/yUSoFwk2AG11znXhyeYOlUB2lFI Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:00:15 -0000 On 8/30/14 12:52 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Pete Resnick writes: > >> Good point: >> >> Mar 2015 Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better >> support indirect email flows > > Up to this point the discussion on the dmarc mailing list has focused > on alternative channels (Otis's TPA-labels, Kucherawy-Crocker's > DKIM-Delegate) for communicating authorization, not changes to DMARC. > > Given that *all* of these specifications focus on authorization rather > than denial with the single exception of DMARC's p=reject/quarantine, > it's not obvious to me that improvements to DMARC are needed/feasible > beyond acknowledging existence of other authorization protocols to > which recipient policy may give precedence. > > How about s/DMARC improvements/protocol improvements/ ? If necessary, > a nod to "including changes to DMARC" could be added. > While I agree in principle, this is a distinction that is likely to be lost on people outside of the WG. "DMARC improvements" in the charter was meant to encompass possible changes to the DMARC spec, deletions from the DMARC spec, and additions to the DMARC spec (e.g., extra header fields in the message meant to indicate to implementations to do something different than the current DMARC spec says to do). I think most folks would understand all of those to be "DMARC improvements", whether or not they actually call out a change in the base spec. We in the WG understand what we mean, and we can certainly be clear about it in the wiki. But I see no need for a change to the milestone text. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 From nobody Sat Aug 30 07:07:05 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6071A0349 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:07:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 tS_Z_Yku0Ve5 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yh0-x22f.google.com (mail-yh0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22f]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A5641A02FC for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yh0-f47.google.com with SMTP id c41so2292210yho.34 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:07:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eudev.net; s=s1; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=udokQQFHOxAt2op7Kx6CTCgcxmQPxzk40zD73V9/O7U=; b=UfXz3lLUHW1HS+lu2TVDgHOvsUueI9NgEf4XpSp3tLtaLBDva62Azmzr5XdWGqxpW1 mNnbGR04HJYS9eHGe32DvrVnfIHWeOHEafbJqXh7JcjqstqNhI8ow4HMkYQallacDuWX craHPjYv7NKAH4kkp+7eSJmR29Y2g6r0TtYMs= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:content-type:mime-version:subject:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=udokQQFHOxAt2op7Kx6CTCgcxmQPxzk40zD73V9/O7U=; b=LX9FTwm+/UM6YZPWt7hrMrIQNpCa3O8hNouwfu18x2YezZ5C9UOXOKBzcXFSQMO9af 0xiWzoVmSmiQs7fRnmGv6xy7GvE/cqOPHaIDAGaRGBjHonBkfxz12cpwUVt7zKZZRUOP GYleucieWpprz1SMUkrhjwpUTOs2er4ak7ISuac6vQ+Y/MJf8IVCXuyFgYfTd3siib1I i9eZtKBRhnFAigYK3g69zZeKu9abPCcgjVLn12dWE4viZEmSCROJ4WfphhnL3GsLonhh EOPz9yluATfewwN8MNXsangIE/lFQYTVfDITyPtySmv9qWTshYGGNKQ4+17AHMbaHso2 pHaw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmdkUgTEMMoU9/APSuJ6IG7SMh5ouiS/IbLCh4iXpAgIZwaijsI9waNQTRfWX77XJYh56VM X-Received: by 10.236.26.101 with SMTP id b65mr20188858yha.75.1409407620327; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.15] (97-82-223-101.dhcp.hckr.nc.charter.com. [97.82.223.101]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l64sm1033176yhq.22.2014.08.30.07.06.59 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:06:59 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tim Draegen In-Reply-To: <5401D832.2@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 10:07:00 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> <5400C3DE.4030509@qti.qualcomm.com> <87wq9qa5iz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <5401D832.2@qti.qualcomm.com> To: Pete Resnick X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/BPgG8TU1Wvm6YZ_1SdxAkfGhTUA Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:07:03 -0000 On Aug 30, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Pete Resnick = wrote: > We in the WG understand what we mean, and we can certainly be clear = about it in the wiki. But I see no need for a change to the milestone = text. Almost had some crosstalk.. Stephen, the wiki is supposed to make this aspect clear, specifically = "Phase 2". If this isn't clear ("proposed specification changes"), we = can make it so. -=3D Tim http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki From nobody Sat Aug 30 07:12:37 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A651A02D2 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:12:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 PxUzX2w3J4xE for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:12:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pie.eudaemon.net (pie.eudaemon.net [72.250.241.194]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 721791A0319 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 07:12:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.1.15] (97-82-223-101.dhcp.hckr.nc.charter.com [97.82.223.101]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pie.eudaemon.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1A8C6CB46; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 10:12:35 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Tim Draegen In-Reply-To: <5640766.9itaAbt4HU@scott-latitude-e6320> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 10:12:32 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <75D9D46C-2C90-4A8A-AF22-E03E27CF79B3@eudaemon.net> References: <5640766.9itaAbt4HU@scott-latitude-e6320> To: Scott Kitterman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/lX5PGuf9q3GRgiAIJDRCnKHEE9A Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 issue X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:12:35 -0000 On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:39 PM, Scott Kitterman = wrote: > Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right = list for=20 > issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ... Right list. Just to set precedent, any thoughts on this issue will be = captured in the WG's issue tracker. Once the WG shifts to considering = specification changes (next year), we'll bring it up again and fold = necessary changes into spec. =3D- Tim > The definition of "fo" in Section 5.2, General Record Format, allows = both=20 > values of "0" and "1" to be specified. It was suggested to me offlist = that this=20 > might not be appropriate, so I thought it worth a discussion. >=20 > Does anyone who's implemented "fo" have a problem with both "0" and = "1" being=20 > specified? If it is somehow problematic, then the base spec ought to = say so. From nobody Sat Aug 30 08:03:03 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707DC1A8A53 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:03:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.002 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 aGXnMZNIbJ0T for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D8091A040C for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 055B1D046D2; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:02:57 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1409410977; bh=eYJudeARmaC88h7UStammZ2N1GAdZFLrTPopmcUQ38E=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=S7OlFQqIgrKidJ2mu2CbCqAjYJgt/xZZcqq5syFWyfv5lMmrrnW9DooNI7dDXFUPL nVG7rtre6++2IN975aeMJ6Mm1BRKonioOGEx6NqsAb/+VgZNz9iujaN4fKqKxm4biY +kjQa0UNmc82WLIdtdg0nTOPviUrR9ZWIXdtSwrw= Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D9A5FD0466F; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:02:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Kitterman To: dmarc@ietf.org Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 11:02:55 -0400 Message-ID: <4124371.Y384tVzZdP@scott-latitude-e6320> User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-34-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <75D9D46C-2C90-4A8A-AF22-E03E27CF79B3@eudaemon.net> References: <5640766.9itaAbt4HU@scott-latitude-e6320> <75D9D46C-2C90-4A8A-AF22-E03E27CF79B3@eudaemon.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/TjHK-DIwu4sUdw6NLQyjLODK2W4 Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 issue X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 15:03:00 -0000 On Saturday, August 30, 2014 10:12:32 Tim Draegen wrote: > On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:39 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list > > for > > issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ... > > Right list. Just to set precedent, any thoughts on this issue will be > captured in the WG's issue tracker. Once the WG shifts to considering > specification changes (next year), we'll bring it up again and fold > necessary changes into spec. Since the base spec isn't published yet, it'd be nice to see a nit like this resolved before publication. Scott K > > > The definition of "fo" in Section 5.2, General Record Format, allows both > > values of "0" and "1" to be specified. It was suggested to me offlist > > that this might not be appropriate, so I thought it worth a discussion. > > > > Does anyone who's implemented "fo" have a problem with both "0" and "1" > > being specified? If it is somehow problematic, then the base spec ought > > to say so. > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc From nobody Sat Aug 30 08:26:32 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08A01A0484 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:26:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 CPez5jXNm7cu for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 691891A0457 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:26:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-8-156.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.156]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s7UFQNSQ017834 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:26:27 -0700 Message-ID: <5401EC74.6080309@dcrocker.net> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:23:32 -0700 From: Dave Crocker Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Kitterman References: <5640766.9itaAbt4HU@scott-latitude-e6320> <75D9D46C-2C90-4A8A-AF22-E03E27CF79B3@eudaemon.net> In-Reply-To: <75D9D46C-2C90-4A8A-AF22-E03E27CF79B3@eudaemon.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.66]); Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:26:27 -0700 (PDT) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5p07CmUQ-CEQ5TcQz3K5aYGmo4w Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , Tim Draegen Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 issue X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: dcrocker@bbiw.net List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 15:26:30 -0000 On 8/30/2014 7:12 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:39 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list for >> issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ... > > Right list. ... While this might be a reasonable list for the question, it might be more useful to /start/ with a broader and more operations-oriented dmarc list, and then bring the topic here when there is some convergence from the discussion elsewhere. That is, perhaps start by asking the question on: http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net From nobody Sat Aug 30 08:27:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE6881A0484 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:27:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 o4bL9sB0b19c for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9477E1A0457 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PBZGZEMTCG002AN6@mauve.mrochek.com> for dmarc@ietf.org; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:22:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1409412146; bh=dsv2sXv7XGOkNVdP2DbMo2H+t6wJDnH36SOsEYh5d3c=; h=From:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:To; b=SJIt1AFmEXac/6kSjb7Rd125IlLE/bKwkvqcl2vKIiEnKJX6nRlEMpWhP6hqTz4HL Zd54ol3ExJQjRcfpIfosxTrYajy3fYftx1uElduvBX29DXNluxqf8owHQtxQs3C8Pr LRq9B298pCTvoI37IxM86o+30w03ND3BEEenC3ho= MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; Format=flowed Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01PBZFH1ATPS0000XZ@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for dmarc@ietf.org; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:22:21 -0700 (PDT) From: ned+dmarc@mrochek.com Message-id: <01PBZGZD7L8A0000XZ@mauve.mrochek.com> Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:20:32 -0700 (PDT) In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:57:06 -0500" <5401D832.2@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> <5400C3DE.4030509@qti.qualcomm.com> <87wq9qa5iz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <5401D832.2@qti.qualcomm.com> To: Pete Resnick Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/odjQzvvRF34LafNfbghL_xcqPpE Cc: "Stephen J. Turnbull" , dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 15:27:26 -0000 > On 8/30/14 12:52 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > Pete Resnick writes: > > > >> Good point: > >> > >> Mar 2015 Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better > >> support indirect email flows > > > > Up to this point the discussion on the dmarc mailing list has focused > > on alternative channels (Otis's TPA-labels, Kucherawy-Crocker's > > DKIM-Delegate) for communicating authorization, not changes to DMARC. > > > > Given that *all* of these specifications focus on authorization rather > > than denial with the single exception of DMARC's p=reject/quarantine, > > it's not obvious to me that improvements to DMARC are needed/feasible > > beyond acknowledging existence of other authorization protocols to > > which recipient policy may give precedence. > > > > How about s/DMARC improvements/protocol improvements/ ? If necessary, > > a nod to "including changes to DMARC" could be added. > > > While I agree in principle, this is a distinction that is likely to be > lost on people outside of the WG. "DMARC improvements" in the charter > was meant to encompass possible changes to the DMARC spec, deletions > from the DMARC spec, and additions to the DMARC spec (e.g., extra header > fields in the message meant to indicate to implementations to do > something different than the current DMARC spec says to do). I think > most folks would understand all of those to be "DMARC improvements", > whether or not they actually call out a change in the base spec. > We in the WG understand what we mean, and we can certainly be clear > about it in the wiki. But I see no need for a change to the milestone text. I'm in agreement with Pete. I also fail to see why people not familiar with the group are going to spend time drawing conclusions from reading the milestones in isolation, and in the unlikely event they do, why we should care. Ned From nobody Sat Aug 30 14:17:09 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3367A1A0AFE for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:17:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 lKk6EmXRfrVi for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx-out-1.zmailcloud.com (01.zmailcloud.com [192.198.85.104]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627961A0502 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.01.com (smtp.01.com [10.10.0.43]) by mx-out-1.zmailcloud.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90A8564A26; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:17:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17E56027D; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:17:03 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mG_cT9qVHz5y; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:17:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from smtp.01.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1605602A8; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:17:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B8C860284; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:17:03 -0500 (CDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp-out-2.01.com Received: from smtp.01.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp-out-2.01.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id Fu-j0-NyQGxH; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:17:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [10.0.0.6] (c-67-180-100-98.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.180.100.98]) by smtp-out-2.01.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E99BE6027D; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 16:17:02 -0500 (CDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: Franck Martin In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 14:17:01 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2A07C322-95C0-4025-B651-B38C138EFBE8@peachymango.org> References: <5640766.9itaAbt4HU@scott-latitude-e6320> <75D9D46C-2C90-4A8A-AF22-E03E27CF79B3@eudaemon.net> To: Tim Draegen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Bvat-AIJgciBFJkHAP_qMDc3G_Y Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , Scott Kitterman Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 issue X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2014 21:17:07 -0000 On Aug 30, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:39 PM, Scott Kitterman = wrote: >> Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right = list for=20 >> issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ... >=20 > Right list. Just to set precedent, any thoughts on this issue will be = captured in the WG's issue tracker. Once the WG shifts to considering = specification changes (next year), we'll bring it up again and fold = necessary changes into spec. >=20 I would suggest we just convert draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 into = draft-dmarcwg-dmarc-base-01 to reflect the current spec has been accept = by this WG for further work. Is this the way it is done, usually? Then all issues can be directed, tracked, and emailed to this wg using = the IETF tools (and others) as the spec will have this WG email address = attached to it. From nobody Sat Aug 30 23:35:10 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B0471A8723 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 23:35:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.508 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265] autolearn=no 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 tur0Gq68aOKN for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 23:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E27E1A016A for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 23:35:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26121C3A65; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:26:46 +0900 (JST) Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 870CB1A2848; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:26:46 +0900 (JST) From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" To: Pete Resnick In-Reply-To: <5401D832.2@qti.qualcomm.com> References: <20140828135248.15412.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5400AF63.1080803@qti.qualcomm.com> <4FE2DA0E-3137-4534-94E6-11C43E683937@eudaemon.net> <5400C109.9090400@qti.qualcomm.com> <5400C1EA.6080305@dcrocker.net> <5400C3DE.4030509@qti.qualcomm.com> <87wq9qa5iz.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <5401D832.2@qti.qualcomm.com> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" acf1c26e3019 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:26:46 +0900 Message-ID: <87r3zx9ntl.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/FUr5tv_rjCKFvH_gTladr8XhfLc Cc: dmarc@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Milestones changed for dmarc WG X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 06:35:07 -0000 Pete Resnick writes: > While I agree in principle, this is a distinction that is likely to > be lost on people outside of the WG. "DMARC improvements" in the > charter was meant to encompass possible changes to the DMARC spec, > deletions from the DMARC spec, and additions to the DMARC spec My feeling is that the DMARC consortium would appreciate a change of wording like the one I proposed, and I'm all for keeping them happy and in the club. If the distinction doesn't matter to others, why not? > (e.g., extra header fields in the message meant to indicate to > implementations to do something different than the current DMARC > spec says to do). Again, I don't think that wording is calculated to instill joy at Yahoo!. I think they'd be a lot more comfortable if it were in a separate spec. It would be better if they'd speak for themselves, but AFAIK there are no Yahoo! or AOL reps hanging out here now. From nobody Sat Aug 30 23:47:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE1A01A8715 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 23:47:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265] autolearn=no 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 u-4_sA5M7rXe for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 23:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.97.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C06711A6F51 for ; Sat, 30 Aug 2014 23:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp [130.158.99.156]) by shako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EEA81C3A60; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:47:19 +0900 (JST) Received: by uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 333E61A2848; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:47:19 +0900 (JST) From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" To: dcrocker@bbiw.net In-Reply-To: <5401EC74.6080309@dcrocker.net> References: <5640766.9itaAbt4HU@scott-latitude-e6320> <75D9D46C-2C90-4A8A-AF22-E03E27CF79B3@eudaemon.net> <5401EC74.6080309@dcrocker.net> X-Mailer: VM undefined under 21.5 (beta34) "kale" acf1c26e3019 XEmacs Lucid (x86_64-unknown-linux) Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:47:19 +0900 Message-ID: <87ppfh9mvc.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/baSeOtW0fd2cW3wv6BiPyBqUWFU Cc: Tim Draegen , "dmarc@ietf.org" , Scott Kitterman Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 issue X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 06:47:20 -0000 Dave Crocker writes: > That is, perhaps start by asking the question on: > > http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss Last I heard that list was deprecated in favor of this one. It certainly has been mostly inactive for quite a long time. Murray? Franck? From nobody Sun Aug 31 08:19:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47FD1A0327 for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:18:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.669 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.669 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 6584TZEnrVJy for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 136FA1A030E for ; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:18:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1409498334; x=1441034334; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2iY3Jmny0SJL6Dw0yw+hTFctvGp7K50hgIsXyHAaJKw=; b=mn7+EQeV/c8BI21MhdE16knJUldvtJ3MwtFuGMmUXj7Kh1e8gckxaH1y N3EUGt90VhjrLvdo2VibIJHAdsUhta9EJwXcAkDgzrDNI03gPxpbI+zB+ dNi0wEowe2mLB7k8MJWFor5I5q4lk68sQCpGiotVEYJKHiW9qdz0tb7Du 0=; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7546"; a="73228345" Received: from ironmsg03-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.17]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2014 08:18:53 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,436,1406617200"; d="scan'208";a="741777864" Received: from nasanexhc07.na.qualcomm.com ([172.30.39.190]) by Ironmsg03-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 31 Aug 2014 08:18:53 -0700 Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.5) by qcmail1.qualcomm.com (172.30.39.190) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.181.6; Sun, 31 Aug 2014 08:18:52 -0700 Message-ID: <54033CDB.9070508@qti.qualcomm.com> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 10:18:51 -0500 From: Pete Resnick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Franck Martin References: <5640766.9itaAbt4HU@scott-latitude-e6320> <75D9D46C-2C90-4A8A-AF22-E03E27CF79B3@eudaemon.net> <2A07C322-95C0-4025-B651-B38C138EFBE8@peachymango.org> In-Reply-To: <2A07C322-95C0-4025-B651-B38C138EFBE8@peachymango.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.30.39.5] Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/lo7GF1KGOuiB14aKTQvJ-1b69kc Cc: "dmarc@ietf.org" , Tim Draegen , Scott Kitterman Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 issue X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 15:18:57 -0000 On 8/30/14 4:17 PM, Franck Martin wrote: > On Aug 30, 2014, at 7:12 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: > > >> On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:39 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> >>> Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list for >>> issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ... >>> >> Right list. Just to set precedent, any thoughts on this issue will be captured in the WG's issue tracker. Once the WG shifts to considering specification changes (next year), we'll bring it up again and fold necessary changes into spec. >> If this is a nit that really should be handled before the base spec gets published by the ISE, then bring it to the author of that spec. If it is an issue that requires some discussion and resolution, then putting it into the WG issue tracker for later handling is exactly right. > I would suggest we just convert draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-04 into draft-dmarcwg-dmarc-base-01 to reflect the current spec has been accept by this WG for further work. > There was a very conscious choice to put the following text into the charter: The existing DMARC base specification has been submitted as an Independent Submission to become an Informational RFC. and a very conscious choice to make any review of the base spec part of "phase 3" of this WG's work. This WG is chartered to address the indirect mail flow issues *first*, *then* work on the usage document, and only *then* take on a review of the base spec. These are issues with current deployments that need to be addressed in the short term. Opening up the base spec for rewrite has a high likelihood of derailing that initial work. Furthermore, you will note that there is no requirement in the charter that this WG do an entire rewrite of the base spec, even when it gets to phase 3. The WG could decide to simply publish smaller extension or correction documents that reference the ISE spec. It is certainly a reasonable possibility that the WG might choose to publish the entire base spec, with its changes, as a new standards track document that replaces the Informational document, but the WG will cross that bridge when it gets to it. > Is this the way it is done, usually? > Yes, but the history of the base spec is rather unusual. That's why it's being published, outside of IETF process, as an Informational RFC in the Independent Submission stream. > Then all issues can be directed, tracked, and emailed to this wg using the IETF tools (and others) as the spec will have this WG email address attached to it. > As I said, for issues that need discussion, the WG should track those in its issue tracker. But the intent is to have the base spec published ASAP by the ISE so that the WG has a stable reference to work from for its initial work. pr -- Pete Resnick Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478