Subject: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 13:40:33 -0500

All

During the chairs call this morning we were discussing the upcoming
meeting.  Now Seth has a conflict with the meeting time that can't be
altered.   Since work items have been progressing rather well recently, and
the editors are in positing, we discussed canceling the meeting.  We wanted
to get some feedback from the working group.

Here is a lightweight agenda Seth put together.  Should we 1) have a
meeting around these topics;  2) discuss other topics or 3) cancel the
meeting and keep moving along.

thanks

tim
======

 break out definition of org domain to a different document?
  = scope?

- pct=
  = written, implemented, and understood differently
  = cause of lots of shenanigans
  = more damaging that it's worth?

- aggregate reporting
  = ARC reporting
  = extensible reporting
  = NXDOMAIN reporting

- failure reporting
  = slimmed down reports with minimal PII

- policy discovery
  = tree walk?

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 11:15:52 -0800

> meeting and keep moving along.

I'd vote for 3. I think that it would be better to discuss/hash out these
topics on the list. Perhaps we could start each one with a cogent summary
of the issues related to the topic.

--Kurt

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 12:23:34 -0800

On 11/13/2020 10:40 AM, Tim Wicinski wrote:
> altered.   Since work items have been progressing rather well recently, 
> and the editors are in positing, we discussed canceling the meeting.  We 
> wanted to get some feedback from the working group.
> 

Four days before a scheduled, rare meeting, it's being canceled because 
one of its 3 chairs can't attend?

Or because it has suddenly been realized that the meeting won't be useful?

Really?

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:26:18 -0500

Dave

It's the latter.   Alexey and I are quite fine with running the meeting,
that was part of our conversation.

tim

---

From: Todd Herr <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:34:53 -0500

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:41 PM Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]> wrote:

> [snip]

I vote option 3. There's quite a lot of meaty discussion to be had on these
topics, and I can't see any of them reaching consensus or anything close to
it during the 30 minutes or so each would be allotted.

-- 

*Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager
*e:* [email-masked]
*p:* 703.220.4153

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2020 11:34:46 +0100

On Fri 13/Nov/2020 19:40:33 +0100 Tim Wicinski wrote:
> 
> During the chairs call this morning we were discussing the upcoming meeting.  
> Now Seth has a conflict with the meeting time that can't be altered.   Since 
> work items have been progressing rather well recently, and the editors are in 
> positing, we discussed canceling the meeting.  We wanted to get some feedback 
> from the working group.
> 
> Here is a lightweight agenda Seth put together.  Should we 1) have a meeting 
> around these topics;  2) discuss other topics or 3) cancel the meeting and 
> keep moving along.

3) I follow list discussion better, but in this case I won't be able to 
participate to the meeting anyway (bad timezone).

Best
Ale
--

---

From: "Jim Fenton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:38:36 -0800

So what’s the conclusion on this? I still see the dmarc meeting on the 
agenda page, but without any agenda or meeting materials (unlike 
virtually every other WG meeting).

-Jim

> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 22:41:17 -0800

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:35 PM Todd Herr <todd.herr=
[email-masked]> wrote:

> I vote option 3. There's quite a lot of meaty discussion to be had on
> these topics, and I can't see any of them reaching consensus or anything
> close to it during the 30 minutes or so each would be allotted.
>

My understanding is that consensus calls from meetings still have to be
confirmed with the list before they become action items, so this by itself
isn't a reason to cancel.

-MSK

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 22:46:48 -0800

I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you
shortly.

-MSK, ART AD

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 4:38 PM Jim Fenton <[email-masked]> wrote:

> agenda page, but without any agenda or meeting materials (unlike virtually
> every other WG meeting).
>
> -Jim
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 22:54:20 -0800

If the meeting were to be held, who (besides Jim) was planning to attend?

-MSK, ART AD

---

From: Todd Herr <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 08:36:47 -0500

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 1:54 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> I was planning to attend.

--

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 11:35:24 -0800

> I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you 

Forgive me, but this is all a bit nuts.

Very few days before the scheduled session, we get a query about 
canceling it, though the query also included a fresh, 'lightweight' 
agenda.

A couple of responses are posted, stating a preference for cancellation, 
with no immediate responses choosing having the meeting (though today, 
some have).

We are now less than 12 hours from the scheduled time and still have not 
received a definitive decision by the chairs.

d/

---

From: Dotzero <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 15:09:51 -0500

Considering that some of us have to be up in the wee hours to participate,
it would be nice to know whether it is happening or cancelled. Just saying.
If the agenda is that light weight I may skip it even if held.

Michael Hammer.

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 12:13:34 -0800

+1 to being able to sleep through the night and deal with issues
asynchronously on the list.

--Kurt

---

From: "Jim Fenton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 14:00:29 -0800

On 17 Nov 2020, at 11:35, Dave Crocker wrote:

>> I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to 
>> you shortly.
>
>
> A couple of responses are posted, stating a preference for 
> cancellation, with no immediate responses choosing having the meeting 
> (though today, some have).
>
> We are now less than 12 hours from the scheduled time and still have 
> not received a definitive decision by the chairs.

+1. Given the amount of activity on the mailing list, it seemed obvious 
to me that we would benefit from some higher-bandwidth interaction. But 
apparently that’s less obvious to others.

If the meeting is held, I will be there (since it’s 9-11 pm here in 
California), but understand if we don’t want to keep others up for a 
less than fully productive meeting.

-Jim

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 15:09:49 -0800

Yes, I apologize for not getting back to the WG as promised.  The meeting
will proceed as scheduled.

-MSK, ART AD

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 15:19:13 -0800

To be clear, I encouraged the chairs to hold the meeting as scheduled.  My
reasons:

a) It is likely some people registered for IETF 109 specifically to attend
this and maybe one or two other email-related meetings, possibly at their
own expense.  Canceling this late in the game does them a disservice.

b) Canceling simply on the basis that it's late at night for some people
doesn't seem compelling in the IETF context.

c) As Jim suggested, high-bandwidth discussion will be useful, even if the
list of attendees is relatively small, as any consensus they develop needs
to be verified with the list anyway.

d) My own reading is that more people would likely attend than those who
expressed interest in canceling.

-MSK, your ART AD

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 3:09 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>> Considering that some of us have to be up in the wee hours to
>> participate, it would be nice to know whether it is happening or cancelled.
>> Just saying. If the agenda is that light weight I may skip it even if held.
>>
>> Michael Hammer.
>>