ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)

2014-07-16 19:24:57
Hi Dave,
At 16:01 16-07-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
Yes, but how does (or should) your comment affect the draft charter text?

I did not suggest any change to that text.  I expressed an opinion.

The draft charter text only notes the fact of submission and says
nothing about the further processing that has, might or will take place.
 The IESG assessment is part of the 'will'.

I'll quote from http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13031.html

  "Existing deployment of DMARC has demonstrated utility at internet
   scale"

If I am not mistaken implementers are encouraged to request IETF protocol parameters assignments before deploying them at internet scale. In my opinion an IESG assessment would be useful as the IESG is chartering a working group about DMARC. I am taking a previous (IESG) conflict review into consideration (conflict-review-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt).

Yes, it does set a high bar.

As for actions already taken by some operators, those certainly should
provide interesting input for consideration.  However the mere fact of
those choices having been made does not mean that they are preferred or
even useful.  That's what the working group will (I hope) consider.

Ok.

Yes, it's a challenge to figure out how to word that concisely and
helpfully, given that the charter has already been criticized for being
too long.

So, the intent of the phrase is to distinguish between mechanisms that
might provide author-to-recipient utility, either due to a
'collaborative' effort by both the author's operator and the
intermediary, or solely by the author's operator, with the intermediary
instead being 'passive'.

An example would be a mechanism that requires the intermediary to add
its own signature, versus one that might survive the intermediary, even
without the intermediary taking special action.

Thanks for the above explanation.

That's the intent of the charter, except to the extent that the dmarc wg
might develop some useful input to a separate public suffix effort.

I'll say okay to this one.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>