Re: [dmarc-ietf] Draft DMARC working group charter

Dave Crocker writes: > So perhaps the most useful thing we can do is try to get the wg to > formulate 'needs' I don't see that we have "needs" here. We know how to do this stuff as long as we can get access to certain non-MTA resources (the DNS, in particular). The thing about "organizational

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Draft DMARC working group charter

On 7/1/14 11:00 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: I've looked over the small amount of mail posted about the draft charter and do not see any changes mandated. Nothing mandated, but here are some changes that I think clarify and/or simplify. You can find a diff here:

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Draft DMARC working group charter

So what are we looking for? A new R&D effort? What about all the threat analysis and functional requirement design done (RFCs)? Does this suggest new or renewed signing authorization proposals are welcome? -- Hector Santos http://www.santronics.com On Jul 2, 2014, at 2:01 PM, Barry Leiba w

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Draft DMARC working group charter

> The charter won't be directing the wg to 'start with' or 'work from' or > 'build upon' or any equivalent constraint, for these drafts, I think the > simplest approach is just to add these citations to the References > section. (Actually meant to do that originally.) That seems like the right ap

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Draft DMARC working group charter

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Douglas Otis wrote: > Agreed, as it seems such efforts have been excluded by the charter > language. It would be a shame, since there needs to be a remedy permitting > back-office services such as those offered by Intuit and the like. It > seems such efforts are

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Draft DMARC working group charter

On 7/2/2014 9:51 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Clarity and comprehensibility are very important from my POV[2]. For > that sake, I suggest the charter mention candidate solutions such as > DKIM-Delegate and TPA-Labels explicitly. Some further wordsmithing > may be advisable too

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Draft DMARC working group charter

On Jul 2, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > My question about the stance toward DKIM tweaks[1] was never answered. > To re-state, while preclusion is apparent for the organizational > domain issue, it is not clear for DKIM

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Draft DMARC working group charter

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 1:45 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > My question about the stance toward DKIM tweaks[1] was never answered. > To re-state, while preclusion is apparent for the organizational > domain issue, it is not clear for DKIM. The charter says: > >The working group will not deve

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Draft DMARC working group charter

On 7/1/2014 5:14 PM, Steven M Jones wrote: > By limiting this consideration to "during the life of this working > group," do we preclude the possibility of defining (in whole or in part) > how such work completed outside and after this WG could be plugged in? > Why not have the flexibility in the c

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Draft DMARC working group charter

On 07/01/2014 07:58 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Steven M Jones writes: > > [ ...] > > part) how such work completed outside and after this WG could be > > plugged in? > > I think "precluding" is advisable. [...] > > I don't see how we can > really "define" a plug-in beyond "new algorithm",

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Draft DMARC working group charter

On Tue 01/Jul/2014 18:00:43 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote: > On 6/20/2014 12:38 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> Here is some draft text to consider for a DMARC working group charter: > > > G'day, > > I've looked over the small amount of mail posted about the draft charter > and do not see any changes mand