Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-17 Thread Roland Turner
On 05/18/2016 01:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy > 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

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-17 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy 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

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-17 Thread Dave Crocker
On 5/17/2016 6:08 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Dave Crocker > wrote: Relevant charter text: The working group will explore possible updates and extensions to the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-17 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Steven M Jones wrote: > > Seems to me you've identified a contradiction in the charter, rather > than an objection to developing ARC... > > ...and I thought that's how I'd characterized it. But if the charter says we can't take on this work, or

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-17 Thread Dave Crocker
On 5/17/2016 12:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: he charter enumerates three tracks, the first of which appears to allow discussion of new protocols; in particular, one might argue that ARC is a "form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit through intermediaries". However, in

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-17 Thread Steven M Jones
On 05/17/2016 13:14, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > > MK: Absent a desire to form a distinct working group to develop ARC, I think > we need to discuss rechartering before we can entertain this motion. > > MH: If we need to re-charter then I think we should re-charter. There > are already

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-17 Thread Steven M Jones
On 05/17/2016 12:53, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > The charter enumerates three tracks, the first of which appears to allow > discussion of new protocols; in particular, one might argue that ARC is > a "form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit through > intermediaries".

Re: [dmarc-ietf] [!!Mass Mail]Re: Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-17 Thread MH Michael Hammer (5304)
Comments in-line From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 3:53 PM To: Alessandro Vesely Cc: Kurt Andersen (b); DMARC; Barry Leiba Subject: [!!Mass Mail]Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-17 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: > > Does anyone object to having the DMARC working group take on this work? > I agree with Alessandro, but for procedural reasons: I'm not sure it fits within our present charter. The charter enumerates three tracks, the

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the WG (toward phase 2 milestone)

2016-05-17 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On Wed 11/May/2016 18:00:25 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: > It certainly seems that the working group is interested in discussing > ARC, as I can judge from the discussion in the short time since Kurt's > proposal. So let's go back and get a proper answer: > > Does anyone object to having the DMARC