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 encou
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 9:09 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
>
> On Aug 24, 2014, at 10:35 PM, Kurt Andersen 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 deliver
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 flo
On Aug 24, 2014, at 10:35 PM, Kurt Andersen 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 somew
[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 matur
Tim Draegen wrote:
On Aug 23, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Miles Fidelman 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
On Aug 24, 2014 5:48 PM, "Tim Draegen" 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 wa
On Aug 23, 2014, at 10:34 AM, Miles Fidelman 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 au
On Aug 23, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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?
Yes, I'll post su
On 8/23/2014 8:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Miles Fidelman
> 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
> interoperab
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Miles Fidelman
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 a
Tim Draegen wrote:
On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:04 AM, Eliot Lear 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
issu
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:31 AM, Tim Draegen wrote:
>
> 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
On Aug 21, 2014, at 2:04 AM, Eliot Lear 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 Thanksgiv
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
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 W
16 matches
Mail list logo
