Subject: Re: MTAmark (was: Reality check please)

From: Markus Stumpf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 21:20:24 +0200

On Fri, Jun 11, 2004 at 01:04:22PM -0500, wayne wrote:
> Since
> the interim meeting, all 2821 proposals are now out of scope. 

Ah. Says who?
I can only see a single pointer to that mentioned in the minutes
of the interim meeting:
*> Andy asked the room if they found the converged plan valuable and
*> wise use of time and received a loud hum.
This was about the convergence of CID and SPF. I can see no mention
in the minutes nor a statement on the list that the WG has set the
goal to publish a standard along the lines of CID/SPF merge.

I can't see that any verification has taken place in this mailing list
which would be required by RFC 2418 / 3.3. Session management.

But I don't think I care any longer, it is of no use to beat a dead
horse. As I said before this WG has lost contact to reality and
timely deployment if the goal is SPG/CID merge with XML in DNS.

We had the day before yesterday (yesterday was public holiday here so
lesser emails than usual) on a /medium (to some smaller) sized/ MTA:
    499078 non bounce messages
     40885 unique sender domain.
Quite some of them are mailing lists and forwards, but if MARID goes
2822 checks the number of unique sender domains probably doubles.
Did anybody seriously think about the time delay, bandwidth increase,
memory increase in the caches and load increase on the auth servers
this will result in? Queries for the MARID records and queries for the
"includes" and queries for the reputation and accreditation services
which have to some degree be serialized (can't query reputation and
accreditation services before the MARID records are queried in depth)
and all will be useless as not more than 10% of all existing domains
will deploy MARID within the next 5 years. Ok, make it 50% and it
doesn't change a thing. Because of a 50:50 chance no one will reject
messages. Oh and about preventing phishing "because we authorize with
MARID records and have authentication" read
    http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2004/03/23.html

> I don't think Markus was at the meeting,

Neither me privately not my employer were willing to pay the 2000 or so
bucks for travelling across half of the world to attend a one day meeting.

> but PHB was, so I'm surprised
> he is posting this out of scope stuff.

Unless there is a clear and agreed upon scope different from the charter
for this WG posted here and official announced, postings like this of
PHB are hardly out of scope.

	\Maex

-- 
SpaceNet AG            | Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0
Research & Development |       D-80807 Muenchen    | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299
"The security, stability and reliability of a computer system is reciprocally
 proportional to the amount of vacuity between the ears of the admin"

---

From: Matthew Elvey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:52:47 -0700

On 6/11/2004 11:04 AM, wayne sent forth electrons to convey:

>You guys are raising good and interesting points about both the pros
>and cons of things like MTAMARK, but this is all irrelevant.  Since
I'm sorry, but I WAS at the interim meeting.  I believe that was NOT 
decided.
In which of the 13 items mentioned in the minutes is this?
Perhaps I was out of the room.

What Markus has said re. RFC 2418 / 3.3 is correct,
to which I should add that IMO, the minutes are not accurate regarding 
the hum - as I'd discussed with a chair, and IIRC, he said he's planning 
to revise in a new minutes version.
See the email I just posted, Subject: Re: Alternative to TXT or new RR.  
I was there for the hum in question.

There are dealbreakers that SPF+CallerID hasn't faced yet.  Dealbreakers 
that other proposals do not have.

On 6/11/2004 4:27 PM, william(at)elan.net sent forth electrons to convey:

> [T]he current primary work is on SPF+CallerID ...
False.  
From what I know of one of the IESG's members, SPF+CallerID is likely a non-starter, primarily for gross violation of the KISS principle.

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:26:53 -0500

> Perhaps I was out of the room.

Yes, I know you were at the meeting also, as were several others.
I've asked around and apparently what I remember isn't at all what
others remember.  

What I remember is that near the end of the second day, there were
three hums taking in quick succession.  The first asked if MARID
should pursue the Caller-ID/SPF thing, and I remember a loud hum.
Then I clearly remember someone (Ted?  Andy?) saying that this would
mean that we wouldn't pursue 2821 proposals, which I was quite
surprised by, and I remember others being unclear on this.  So, a
second hum was taking on the issue of whether we should pursue both,
and there wasn't a rough consensus that we should.  Finally, after a
little more discussion, a hum was taken as to whether we should go
back to the 2821 issue after we have finished 2821, and I seem to
recall a consensus on that.

> What Markus has said re. RFC 2418 / 3.3 is correct,

Agreed.

> the hum - as I'd discussed with a chair, and IIRC, he said he's
> planning to revise in a new minutes version.

Well, memories are fading.

If my memory is wrong, I will actually be very happy.  I really don't
want the 2821 proposals being off the table.  If my faulty memory has
created confusion and problems, please accept my apologies.

-wayne