Marshall Rose
<mrose+internet(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)mxcomp(_at_)dbc(_dot_)mtview(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>
wrote:
To: John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>
In any case, it's long past the point where we need a copy of
the _actual_ charter as proposed to IESG.
the actual charter proposed to the IESG was sent to the ietf-announce
list for comment.
Hopefully, you're referring to:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf-announce-old/Current/msg29232.html
(dated March 24) which shows:
"
" It would be useful for those maintaining domains and networks
" to be able to specify that individual hosts or nodes are authorized
" to act as MTAs for messages sent from those domains or networks.
" This working group will develop a DNS-based mechanism for
" storing and distributing information associated with that authorization.
" The primary current use case for this facility is to allow recipient
" MTAs to confirm that peer MTAs' actions are authorized by
" specific domains or networks. This will help combat a certain
" class of domain forgery common in spam. The solution chosen,
" however, should be generally useful for others which might
" check this authorization data.
"
" This working group is being chartered after extensive discussion of
" the issues in the IRTF's Anti-spam Research Group, and it is presumed
" that all active participants will be familiar with the documents produced
" there which describe the problem. It is not, however, an extension of
" that research group; it has no general writ to study spam or to
" produce specifications on the topic. It will not consider anti-spam
" abatement measures outside of the area of MTA authorization.
"
" Because individual messages may be associated with multiple domains
" (among them the domains present in the RFC2822 From, RFC2822 Sender,
" the SMTP Mail-From, and the SMTP EHLO), the first task of the working
" group will be to establish which of these identities should be
" associated with MTA authorization. Once this decision has been reached,
" it will limit the scope of further activity in this working group,
" and the chairs will rule out of order discussion related to schemes
" which use other identities as the basis of authorization.
"
" The groups Technical Advisors will help ensure that the semantics of
" proposals originating within this group are consonant with DNS
" standards and syntax, and they will be available for early cross-review
" to ensure that this work proceeds at an appropriate pace.
"
" Upon chartering of this working group, the IESG intends to request
" that the IRTF Chair and the Chairs of the IRTF's Anti-Spam Research
" Group seek publication of the listed input documents as Experimental
" RFCs, so that they are available on an archival basis. The IESG also
" intends to request that the RFC editor insert a note into each document
" informing the reader that the IETF's MARID working group has taken on
" the task of producing a standard in this area.
I plead guilty to misreading Ted's last post about the charter, which
was in fact only listing diffs from his March 15th post.
So, in fact I agree that the charter contains the words:
"
" It will not consider anti-spam abatement measures outside of the area
" of MTA authorization.
(I do not agree, however that my "omission" of those words amounted
to posting out of context; and I believe those words must be considered
in their own context: that MARID is not an extension of IRTF's ASRG.)
And, of course, we still don't know whether the IESG may modify this
charter before approving it. They're accepting comments through March
31st...
--
John Leslie <john(_at_)jlc(_dot_)net>