Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda requests for Madrid IETF
In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:36 AM Seth Blank 40valimail@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > >> We have a session on the books for IETF108, and would like suggestions >> from the group for the agenda, otherwise the chairs will choose relevant >> topics. Items in tickets or from the past month are all fair game. >> > >Based on the recent discussions that have been happening, I think that >there are two key topics that should be hashed out in the F2F: > > 1. Jim Fenton's ask to develop a threat model; along with this I think > we need to more tightly defined the problem statement > 2. Is the goal of this WG to "get DMARC onto the standard track" or is > it to "solve the spam problem"? I would hope that we'd all agree that the answer to the second question is obvious. R's, John ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda requests for Madrid IETF
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:36 AM Seth Blank wrote: > We have a session on the books for IETF108, and would like suggestions > from the group for the agenda, otherwise the chairs will choose relevant > topics. Items in tickets or from the past month are all fair game. > Based on the recent discussions that have been happening, I think that there are two key topics that should be hashed out in the F2F: 1. Jim Fenton's ask to develop a threat model; along with this I think we need to more tightly defined the problem statement 2. Is the goal of this WG to "get DMARC onto the standard track" or is it to "solve the spam problem"? --Kurt ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda requests for Madrid IETF
On 7/23/2020 11:50 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: On 7/20/20 11:36 AM, Seth Blank wrote: We have a session on the books for IETF108, and would like suggestions from the group for the agenda, otherwise the chairs will choose relevant topics. Items in tickets or from the past month are all fair game. Thanks, Seth, Tim, and Alexey I am hoping for a resolution on whether/how to split DMARC into 2 or 3 separate specifications (e.g., aggregated reports, failure reports, policy). I understand the chairs were discussing this. +1. (I believe it will provide necessary focus on a DMARC-BASE spec. Its variables and outputs can be defined, registered for the DKIM-REPORTS specs.) -- Hector Santos, https://secure.santronics.com https://twitter.com/hectorsantos ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda requests for Madrid IETF
On 7/20/20 11:36 AM, Seth Blank wrote: > We have a session on the books for IETF108, and would like suggestions > from the group for the agenda, otherwise the chairs will choose > relevant topics. Items in tickets or from the past month are all fair > game. > > Thanks, > > Seth, Tim, and Alexey > I am hoping for a resolution on whether/how to split DMARC into 2 or 3 separate specifications (e.g., aggregated reports, failure reports, policy). I understand the chairs were discussing this. -Jim ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Agenda requests for Madrid IETF
On Mon 20/Jul/2020 20:36:21 +0200 Seth Blank wrote: We have a session on the books for IETF108, and would like suggestions from the group for the agenda, otherwise the chairs will choose relevant topics. Items in tickets or from the past month are all fair game. I think *The fate of From:* can be a fair title for summarizing the WG feelings about relaxing rules in favor of Sender: (#73), as well as other issues about this field, such as multi-address (#74) and the companion Author:. It'd be appropriate to air this topic also in next day's emailcore session. Best Ale -- ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
