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 tribe tends to forget and forgive setting the stage for you to work more smoothly together. It’s like when the godfather called in the 5 families.On Nov 1, 2023, at 3:21 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: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.BarryOn Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:38 AM Barry Leibawrote: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 evaluating DMARC? Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue on the mailing list? And being clear here: the "eliminate SPF entirely" suggestion is definitely out, failing rough consensus. We're *only* talking about the suggestion to add a tag to specify what the sender wants. Barry ___dmarc mailing listdmarc@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
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 Leibawrote: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 evaluating DMARC? Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue on the mailing list? And being clear here: the "eliminate SPF entirely" suggestion is definitely out, failing rough consensus. We're *only* talking about the suggestion to add a tag to specify what the sender wants. BarryLet the discussion continue on the list. Personally I think there has been enough discussion that there can be a call for consensus.Barry, you think there’s rough consensus now? If so then by all means count asap and get closure. Even those who disagree respect the process and will keep their party dry to fight another day. I don’t know exactly what rough consensus is no I know it when I see it, to paraphrase Brandeis. And we all know what it looks like. Accepting defeat even when we think we are fire right is part of what makes this country great. We concede. That’s honor.___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
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 face >to your e-mail addresses. We'll be there all week and most of us are happy to find excuses for lunches and dinners. R's, John ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC session at IETF 118
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 face to your e-mail addresses. Regards, Olivier De: "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 a convincing reason that we need to keep the session. Barry On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 10:38 AM Barry Leiba < [ mailto:barryle...@computer.org | barryle...@computer.org ] > 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 specify which authentication mechanism(s) to use when evaluating DMARC? Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue on the mailing list? And being clear here: the "eliminate SPF entirely" suggestion is definitely out, failing rough consensus. We're *only* talking about the suggestion to add a tag to specify what the sender wants. Barry ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
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 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 evaluating > DMARC? > > Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue > on the mailing list? > > And being clear here: the "eliminate SPF entirely" suggestion is > definitely out, failing rough consensus. We're *only* talking about > the suggestion to add a tag to specify what the sender wants. > > Barry > ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
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 disproportionate amount of influence given their scale, it's crucial that the IETF remains committed to standards that serve the broader community. The far-reaching impact of decisions related to SPF, DKIM, and DMARC policies cannot be overstated. Moreover, I believe that discussing these issues in a more dynamic setting like IETF 118 can bring fresh perspectives into the fold, especially from those who may not be regular mailing list contributors but have substantial stakes in this. Specifically, I want to draw attention to the idea of expanding our focus to include DKIM Policy Modeling. DMARC, a derivative of the incomplete ADSP/ATPS protocols, has its value but has also been commercialized to a degree that may not fully align with IETF standards. Instead of introducing new proposals, my suggestion aims to refocus our current discussions. I believe we could benefit from considering DMARC as an Informational document. This would allow us to collectively examine existing standards more critically and possibly identify areas for improvement that better align with IETF principles. Thank you for considering this perspective. Best, HLS On 10/28/2023 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 specify which authentication mechanism(s) to use when evaluating DMARC? Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue on the mailing list? And being clear here: the "eliminate SPF entirely" suggestion is definitely out, failing rough consensus. We're *only* talking about the suggestion to add a tag to specify what the sender wants. Barry ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc -- Hector Santos, https://santronics.com https://winserver.com ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
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 -- ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
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 specify which authentication mechanism(s) to use when evaluating > DMARC? > > Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue > on the mailing list? > > And being clear here: the "eliminate SPF entirely" suggestion is > definitely out, failing rough consensus. We're *only* talking about > the suggestion to add a tag to specify what the sender wants. > > Barry > Let the discussion continue on the list. Personally I think there has been enough discussion that there can be a call for consensus. Michael Hammer ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
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 I've heard many voices wanting closure so that DMARCbis can be published. -Wei On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 11:02 AM Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > 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 > >to specify which authentication mechanism(s) to use when evaluating > >DMARC? > > > >Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue > >on the mailing list? > > > >And being clear here: the "eliminate SPF entirely" suggestion is > >definitely out, failing rough consensus. We're *only* talking about > >the suggestion to add a tag to specify what the sender wants. > > > I think cancel the meeting and keep the discussion on the ML. > > Scott K > > ___ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
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 >to specify which authentication mechanism(s) to use when evaluating >DMARC? > >Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue >on the mailing list? > >And being clear here: the "eliminate SPF entirely" suggestion is >definitely out, failing rough consensus. We're *only* talking about >the suggestion to add a tag to specify what the sender wants. > I think cancel the meeting and keep the discussion on the ML. Scott K ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc