Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

For routine, remote is perfect but I’d imagine hums leave no doubt in Prague and a chance for rapport to be established. As an observer this proces made me tense and annoyed at time. Myn2 cents is go to Prague. It’s a gorgeous city. This group has a gruff vibe in the tradition of Usenet but our

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

On Oct 29, 2023, at 7:57 AM, Dotzero wrote:On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 1:38 PM Barry Leiba wrote:I'm starting this in a separate thread that I want to keep for ONLY the following question: Do we want to use the session we have scheduled at IETF 118 to talk about the issue

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

It appears that OLIVIER HUREAU said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >I was personally planning to go to the IETF-118 specifically for the DMARC >meeting. In the end, many other >activities caught my eye. >However, if any of you are going to the IETF, I'd be happy to share a few >words about DMARC and put a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

: "Barry Leiba" À: "IETF DMARC WG" Envoyé: Mercredi 1 Novembre 2023 23:20:46 Objet: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118 The sense I’m getting is to cancel the session in Prague. I’ll do that tomorrow (Thursday) morning SFO time unless someone screams loudly with

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

The sense I’m getting is to cancel the session in Prague. I’ll do that tomorrow (Thursday) morning SFO time unless someone screams loudly with a convincing reason that we need to keep the session. Barry On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:38 AM Barry Leiba wrote: > I'm starting this in a separate

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

Hi Barry, We not both?  A robust discussion on the mailing list coupled with a dedicated session at IETF 118. This issue has deep implications for everyone from small businesses to the large players in domain hosting like Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo. While these major players hold a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

On Sat 28/Oct/2023 19:38:00 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote: Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue on the mailing list? Cancel. All facets of auth= have been brought up already, methinks. We could hum on list. Best Ale --

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 1:38 PM Barry Leiba wrote: > I'm starting this in a separate thread that I want to keep for ONLY > the following question: > > Do we want to use the session we have scheduled at IETF 118 to talk > about the issue that clearly is still in discussion about adding a tag > to

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

I'd vote for discussing the "auth=" tag proposal at IETF-118, and I can participate remotely. Discussing this on the mailing list is easier, but will be drawn out as it's harder to understand if there is consensus one way or the other. The advantage is that this will time box the discussion and

Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

On October 28, 2023 5:38:00 PM UTC, Barry Leiba wrote: >I'm starting this in a separate thread that I want to keep for ONLY >the following question: > >Do we want to use the session we have scheduled at IETF 118 to talk >about the issue that clearly is still in discussion about adding a tag

[dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118

I'm starting this in a separate thread that I want to keep for ONLY the following question: Do we want to use the session we have scheduled at IETF 118 to talk about the issue that clearly is still in discussion about adding a tag to specify which authentication mechanism(s) to use when