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

[Neil Anuskiewicz]

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 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 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

[Neil Anuskiewicz]

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 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

[John Levine]

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

[OLIVIER HUREAU]

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

[Barry Leiba]

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

[Hector Santos]

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

[Alessandro Vesely]

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

[Dotzero]

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

[Wei Chuang]

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

[Scott Kitterman]

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