Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
On 8/24/14 9:09 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: So, the WG will maintain an official focus that will track the milestones to allow for wider participation. That said, work on items that are ahead of the official focus (or even behind if something is overlooked and important) is most definitely encouraged, because it doesn't make sense to nip constructive work in the bud just to follow process. The only caveat I can think of is that topics/work-items will necessarily remain open until the WG officially focuses on them (again with the aim of inviting wide participation). Sure, but When the IESG reviewed this charter, we agreed to the three different phases for a reason: Dealing with the Indirect Mail Flow issue is a pretty contained task. We were inclined not to have the WG start diving into ratholes right out of the gate. The Usage Guide is a bit more of an open-ended discussion than Indirect Mail Flow, and the Spec Review could be a *big* discussion. Having a huge thread trying to sort a really juicy issue for a later phase can really suck the energy out of work on a current topic. So we wanted to give the chairs the ability to say, Thanks, that issue is definitely something we need to consider for the Spec Review, but let's toss that in the issue list for now and delay discussion of it until we're done with the current discussion. I definitely don't want work on future phase stuff ignored, but I also hope that we'll all be willing to hold off when the chairs say, Not right now. pr -- Pete Resnickhttp://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/ Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478 ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
I agree with most of the commentary I've seen in this thread. I just wanted to highlight one milestone: - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to address). - 92nd IETF: Deliverable #2 - Document describing DMARC improvements to better support indirect mail flows. So that's delivery of #2 during the last week of March, 2015, or about eight months from now. And roughly three months after Deliverable #1, including possible methods to address interop issues, is delivered. How much running code[1] is Deliverable #2 supposed to reflect? Even bearing in mind Tim's note about not being too limited by waterfalling, we'd want to have solidly identified the mechanisms to be tested well before the holiday season - especially given lead times for larger organizations/operators, where it might take three months just to implement and package any changes. I know this is all pretty flexible at this stage, so again I'm just wondering if at this stage we have a notion of whether and/or how much operational experience we expect to inform Deliverable #2? Either way, I'm glad to see us moving forward. --Steve. [1] Dr. Dave Clark, http://www.ietf.org/tao.html, etc. I always thought it was rough consensus and working code, glad I checked. ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote: On Aug 24, 2014, at 10:35 PM, Kurt Andersen kb...@drkurt.com wrote: Once the milestones discussion has settled..., Ned and myself will create an outline of topics and work items that, when worked through, should have the WG arrive at its deliverables. =- Tim What about adopting a somewhat more agile, less waterfall strategy? So, the WG will maintain an official focus that will track the milestones to allow for wider participation. That said, work on items that are ahead of the official focus (or even behind if something is overlooked and important) is most definitely encouraged, because it doesn't make sense to nip constructive work in the bud just to follow process. The only caveat I can think of is that topics/work-items will necessarily remain open until the WG officially focuses on them (again with the aim of inviting wide participation). I hope the above is an acceptable compromise between remaining agile with respect to work items while keeping a schedule for those of that require an explicit time place to be productive. That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for the detail. --Kurt ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
On Aug 24, 2014 5:48 PM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote: Once the milestones discussion has settled..., Ned and myself will create an outline of topics and work items that, when worked through, should have the WG arrive at its deliverables. =- Tim What about adopting a somewhat more agile, less waterfall strategy? --Kurt ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
On Aug 24, 2014, at 10:35 PM, Kurt Andersen kb...@drkurt.com wrote: Once the milestones discussion has settled..., Ned and myself will create an outline of topics and work items that, when worked through, should have the WG arrive at its deliverables. =- Tim What about adopting a somewhat more agile, less waterfall strategy? Kurt, although I don't see this WG as a product development exercise (where agile and its bugbear waterfall tend to live), I think you're touching on something that should be clarified. There are a few challenges in play that will make this WG difficult: the email community is vast (because the deployment base is almost ubiquitous), email has been around for a long time (and there probably isn't an upgrade cycle), and the WG is focused on understanding and addressing DMARC's impact on indirect email flows (which means we're not likely to hear from people where impact is near zero). Against this backdrop/problem-space, the order of the milestones is important. Obviously, the latter milestones are informed by the earlier ones.. BUT, there's a nuance in play due to the enormity of the problem space. The milestones will allow the WG to solicit participation from the email community for specific topics/work-items without requiring full-time participation for the next 9+ months. This work has to remain accessible. So, the WG will maintain an official focus that will track the milestones to allow for wider participation. That said, work on items that are ahead of the official focus (or even behind if something is overlooked and important) is most definitely encouraged, because it doesn't make sense to nip constructive work in the bud just to follow process. The only caveat I can think of is that topics/work-items will necessarily remain open until the WG officially focuses on them (again with the aim of inviting wide participation). I hope the above is an acceptable compromise between remaining agile with respect to work items while keeping a schedule for those of that require an explicit time place to be productive. =- Tim ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
[dropping apps-discuss from this reply] On 08/18/2014 08:31 AM, Tim Draegen wrote: Hello world of email, The DMARC WG is getting started [1]. This IETF working group's goal is to address interoperability issues with indirect email flows, to document operational practices, and to mature the existing DMARC base specification. If you would like to join please visit the DMARC WG [2]. The WG's Wiki page [3] documents the approach the WG will take to produce its deliverables. You can find the roadmap/milestones on the site [4]. For your convenience, the proposed milestones are: - 91st IETF: Document describing interoperability issues with DMARC and indirect mail flows. - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to address). - Feb 2015: draft DMARC Usage Guide - 92nd IETF: Deliverable #2 - Document describing DMARC improvements to better support indirect mail flows. - May 2015: Deliverable #3 - base spec changes + DMARC Usage Guide With all the discussion about interoperability issues, DMARC issues, etc. I have lost sight of what the status of the specification itself is. Is there still intent to pursue it through the independent submission path or is it to become a WG document? If so, I don't see it (except possibly as base spec changes in Deliverable #3). In any case, I don't see how you can write deliverable #1 without a normative reference to the specification itself, and therefore I'm unclear on how #1 would be published. -Jim ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
Tim Draegen wrote: On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:04 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote: - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to address). I did notice the absence of anything related to process. How are we going to get to a document (that) captures all known interoperability issue between DMARC and indirect email flows? If this were an RFC, there'd be an author or authors identified, maybe a draft to start from. At a minimum, it seems like someone might want to generate an initial outline, and set it up as a wiki where folks can start providing input. Just a thought. Miles Fidelman -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is. Yogi Berra ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: I did notice the absence of anything related to process. How are we going to get to a document (that) captures all known interoperability issue between DMARC and indirect email flows? If this were an RFC, there'd be an author or authors identified, maybe a draft to start from. Since in essence we're only talking about milestones, I disagree. I've never seen a set of milestones on a WG charter or otherwise that name specific people who will complete them. For some of these there is indeed a draft to start from, named in the charter. -MSK ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
On 8/23/2014 8:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net mailto:mfidel...@meetinghouse.net wrote: I did notice the absence of anything related to process. How are we going to get to a document (that) captures all known interoperability issue between DMARC and indirect email flows? If this were an RFC, there'd be an author or authors identified, maybe a draft to start from. Since in essence we're only talking about milestones, I disagree. I've never seen a set of milestones on a WG charter or otherwise that name specific people who will complete them. Assinging names to tasks in a charter? No, certainly not. On the other hand, a common exercise in a wg organizing bof is to look for a show of hands for interesting in specific topics and willingness to work on them. Perhaps an informal query like that, here, would be useful? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:04 AM, Eliot Lear l...@cisco.com wrote: - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to address). That seems quite short a period between adoption and approval, and I question whether you will get sufficient review at a time when in America there is Thanksgiving, and then in December much of the world takes two weeks off. I'd suggest pushing back one month. Thanks Eliot. The order of the work is the most important thing. When the WG gets near a milestone and its clear the WG is in the thick of it, then the milestone will be pushed back. =- Tim ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
Hi Tim, One suggestion... On 8/18/14, 5:31 PM, Tim Draegen wrote: - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to address). That seems quite short a period between adoption and approval, and I question whether you will get sufficient review at a time when in America there is Thanksgiving, and then in December much of the world takes two weeks off. I'd suggest pushing back one month. Eliot signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
[dmarc-ietf] Start of DMARC WG + proposed milestones
Hello world of email, The DMARC WG is getting started [1]. This IETF working group's goal is to address interoperability issues with indirect email flows, to document operational practices, and to mature the existing DMARC base specification. If you would like to join please visit the DMARC WG [2]. The WG's Wiki page [3] documents the approach the WG will take to produce its deliverables. You can find the roadmap/milestones on the site [4]. For your convenience, the proposed milestones are: - 91st IETF: Document describing interoperability issues with DMARC and indirect mail flows. - EOY 2014: Deliverable #1 (above document + possible methods to address). - Feb 2015: draft DMARC Usage Guide - 92nd IETF: Deliverable #2 - Document describing DMARC improvements to better support indirect mail flows. - May 2015: Deliverable #3 - base spec changes + DMARC Usage Guide If you have comments on the milestones, please provide them by August 25th. Have fun, =- Tim [1] http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/ [2] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc [3] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki [4] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/roadmap ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
