On 5/17/2016 10:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
And I agree, but then I also mentioned that we're now operating
under the second phase of the charter, or so the chairs seemed to
indicate explicitly with their "phase 1 is done" message. This
citation is in the first; the proscription against "additional mail
authentication technologies" (which also, by the way, exactly
describes ARC) that I'm worried about is in the second.
Reducing this to my basic issue, setting aside the matter of phases:
There's one clause in the charter that says ARC is fine, and one that
proscribes it. You appear to be claiming that the first one wins over
the second, plain and simple. I don't understand why it's plain and
simple. Why do they not have equal effect? Is there some "default
allow" nuance when interpreting ambiguous charters?
Murray,
There are a few different points here:
1. The proposed activity falls perfectly under "track" 1:
1. Addressing the issues with indirect mail flows
If anyone disagrees with that, that should probably be discussed as a
distinct point, because I think it's obvious.
2. The constraint to "not develop additional mail authentication
technologies" has a scope limited to the second "track", which is:
Reviewing and improving the base DMARC specification
Since the proposed activity does not directly touch any aspect of the
base DMARC specification, I again think that the INapplicability of the
text for track 2 is also obvious.
3. Now we get to the difference between a track and a phase. And to
state the issue is to state its resolution: these are different
constructs, with different terminology. As if they are meant to be
considered separately...
The first item in Phase II is:
Phase II:
Specification of DMARC improvements to support indirect mail flows
And here's where I wish we'd phrased things a bit differently, although
I don't think the current wording is a show-stopper.
The proposed work falls under this first item in phase II.
The catch is that the draft doesn't /say/ it's improving DMARC. (In
fact, I've been quite vigorous in pressing to have the proposed spec
carefully not say much about DMARC.) But really that's a
document-writing point, not a working group functional point.
That is, ARC's development has been specifically motivated to respond to
exactly this item in Phase II.
If we did sloppy specification-writing, we'd have written this as a part
of a DMARC enhancement. Not the 'base', of course, but an enhancement.
The fact that it's been written as an independent component is so that
its use is not /limited/ to DMARC. But again, that's merely a writing
artifact.
So, my reading of the charter says that the proposed spec falls under
the first item of Phase two and the second sub-bullet of Track 1.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
