Subject: Re: [arch-d] Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc) WG Virtual Meeting: 2020-06-11

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 15:47:15 -0700

Dear Internet Architecture Board,
At 06:55 AM 11-05-2020, IESG Secretary wrote:
>The Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance 
>(dmarc) Working Group will hold
>a virtual interim meeting on 2020-06-11 from 16:00 to 17:00 UTC.
>
>Agenda:
>Joint DMARC 2.0 Discussion (M3AAWG and IETF)

During a discussion in an IETF Working Group it was argued that the 
working group is a standards development organization.  I am 
subscribed to several IETF mailing lists.  It is the first time I 
heard such a statement.

I was a bit surprised to read the above announcement about a meeting 
between an external organization and an IETF Working Group which is 
described as a discussion between the external organization and the 
IETF.  I could not find any recent liaison communication between the 
external organization and the IETF.  Would it be possible to share a 
summary of the discussions which led to the above interim meeting?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 00:15:52 +0100

Hi SM,

I'm not seeing why this is an IAB matter. Current IETF
WGs are looked after by the IESG.

Cheers,
S.

On 12/05/2020 23:47, S Moonesamy wrote:
> working group is a standards development organization.  I am subscribed
> to several IETF mailing lists.  It is the first time I heard such a
> statement.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Architecture-discuss mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/architecture-discuss

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 16:46:28 -0700

Hi Stephen,
>WGs are looked after by the IESG.

I'll list a two points:

   (a) The liaison relationships with external organizations are 
managed by the IAB.

   (b) The liaison representatives who speak on behalf of the IETF 
fall under the IAB.

I understand that existing IETF Working Groups fall under the 
IESG.  However, asking the IESG about a matter which falls under the 
IAB could be viewed as the IAB not having any role in (a) or (b).

Out of curiosity, what are the specific responsibilities of the 
liaison representative in the current case?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 00:59:34 +0100

Hiya,

On 13/05/2020 00:46, S Moonesamy wrote:
>   (a) The liaison relationships with external organizations are managed
> by the IAB.

Yep.

> 
>   (b) The liaison representatives who speak on behalf of the IETF fall
> under the IAB.

Well, I'm not sure anyone speaks "on behalf of" the IETF;-)

> 
> I understand that existing IETF Working Groups fall under the IESG. 
> However, asking the IESG about a matter which falls under the IAB could
> be viewed as the IAB not having any role in (a) or (b).

In practice, I'd say it's usually better to chat with a WG
chair or AD as the relevant bits of liaising are more
likely to be front of their minds and to treat the IAB as a
fallback if stuff's not happening.
> Out of curiosity, what are the specific responsibilities of the liaison
> representative in the current case?

Not sure - you never said which is the other organisation
nor what may be up between us and them.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 19:20:47 -0700

Hi Stephen,
At 04:59 PM 12-05-2020, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> > Â  (b) The liaison representatives who speak on behalf of the IETF fall
> > under the IAB.
>

A definition of "representative" is "a person 
chosen or appointed to act or speak for another 
or others".  RFC 4052 describes the liaison 
manager as "a representative of the IETF".  By my 
reading, that means that the person is speaking on behalf of the IETF.

>fallback if stuff's not happening.

Ok.

>nor what may be up between us and them.

The name (M3AAWG) was in the first email which I sent.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 03:26:59 +0100

Hiya,

> The name (M3AAWG) was in the first email which I sent.

Sorry, I must've missed that.

Barry Leiba (cc'd) is our liaison to m3aawg IIRC. Maybe he
can comment on whatever was said at the dmarc wg virtual
interim.

Cheers.
S.

PS: I'm involved a bit in m3aawg myself as I'm one of
their senior technical advisors (well, supposedly senior
in my case:-), but I wasn't at their most recent meeting
back in Feb when meetings used happen so am not up to
speed on dmarc goings-on in m3aawg.

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 23:14:58 -0700

> speed on dmarc goings-on in m3aawg.

Not speaking for Barry, but as the AD responsible for DMARC:

The meeting is being scheduled and operated as a typical WG interim
meeting, under IETF IPR rules and so forth, scheduled adjacent to a M3AAWG
session on the same topic.  The proximity is meant to encourage
participation in our forum by their members who are typically fairly shy
about doing so.

I don't believe there's been any formal liaison communication prior to
that, though as Stephen points out, Barry is the IETF's liaison to M3AAWG
and is, I imagine, aware of the two meetings and planning to participate in
both.  I will be doing the same.

-MSK

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 23:35:18 -0700

Hi Murray,

Ok.

>meeting, under IETF IPR rules and so forth, scheduled adjacent to a 
>M3AAWG session on the same topic.  The proximity is meant to 
>encourage participation in our forum by their members who are 
>typically fairly shy about doing so.

I read 
https://au.news.yahoo.com/valimail-extends-email-security-standards-172300535.html 
I could not help noticing that DMARC is described as an IETF 
publication.  Is that accurate?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 23:58:04 -0700

> publication.  Is that accurate?

I imagine you are referencing the paragraph that starts "The IETF
previously published an informational RFC ..." and I imagine it is indeed
inaccurate.  The front page text of RFC 7489 makes it clear that it is a
"contribution to the RFC series" and that it is specifically not a
standards track document.

It does, however, say it is "Copyright (c) 2015, The IETF Trust".  The
distinction might be lost on some readers.

-MSK

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 10:07:56 -0400

(Removing IAB from the distribution.)

> >typically fairly shy about doing so.

Adding to that:
Not all inter-organization activity happens with liaison statements,
and it's best when it doesn't happen that way: the most effective way
for organizations to work together is through cross-participation.  In
the case of M3AAWG, there are quite a few IETF participants who are
also active M3AAWG participants, so there's a good flow of work and
information back and forth, and that's healthy for both IETF and
M3AAWG.  My role as the IETF liaison to M3AAWG has included helping
M3AAWG participants come over to the IETF to participate, to make sure
M3AAWG is aware of work in the IETF that's relevant to them, and to
make sure that the IETF -- the IESG, the IAB, and the appropriate
working groups -- is aware of things going on in M3AAWG.  That has
worked well, and some work in the former SPFBIS working group and the
current DMARC and UTA working groups has originated in M3AAWG and been
brought over.

This is also not the first time that IETF working groups have had
joint meetings with other organizations -- more accurately, IETF
sessions where other organizations' members are explicitly invited to
join: these meetings are always held under IETF Note Well and are open
to all participants.  My experience with such meetings is that the
IETF working groups have benefited from targeting participation of the
other organizations' members.

I'm not sure, SM, what your apparent skepticism or concern is about
this.  Perhaps you can be clearer about why you're pushing on it.

> publication.  Is that accurate?

No; it's an RFC, published in the Independent Stream, but not an IETF
publication.  But (1) few people really understand that distinction,
and (2) what you're pointing to is a press release from a private
company for marketing purposes, and its "spin" shouldn't surprise
anyone.  Again, what do you think the IETF's concern here is?

Barry

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 09:25:42 -0700

Dear Barry, IAB,
>(Removing IAB from the distribution.)

Thanks for teh quick reply.  I am copying my reply to the IAB.

>current DMARC and UTA working groups has originated in M3AAWG and been

I don't recall seeing any information flowing towards the IETF.  I 
did not bother much about that until I read a recent comment, which 
is unrelated to DMARC.  The liaison relationship isn't for the 
benefit of the IAB or IESG only as the liaisons are described as 
representing the IETF (please see my exchange with Stephen about that).

>this.  Perhaps you can be clearer about why you're pushing on it.

My concern is that there is very little information about what the 
liaisons representing the IETF are doing.  I don't recall anyone 
asking questions about that unless the practice is to keep those 
discussions behind closed doors.  I requested a summary of the 
discussions which led to the proposed virtual interim.  The reply 
(please see above) mentions that:

   1. It is not the first time that the IETF has a joint meeting.

   2. The IETF benefits from targeting participation from other organizations.

None of that addresses the question which I asked.  Are liaisons 
relationship for outreach (2)?  I don't see anything in the relevant 
documents which mention that as the primary purpose.

For example, there is the following: "Some IETF liaison managers send 
reports to the IAB for publication to the wider community. This 
practice was more common in the past, and previous reports are 
archived here".  For what it is worth, the reports are not available 
on the IAB web site as the link is a 404.  Is that statement for 
marketing purposes?

There is also: "In setting up the relationship, the IAB expects that 
there will be a mutual exchange of views and discussion of the best 
approach for undertaking new standardization work items."  Does 
M3AAWG has any concern about the standardization work being done in 
the IETF DMARC Working Group?

For what it is worth, I was in SPFBIS.  I was not informed about any 
M3AAWG communication.  When was the liaison relationship with M3AAWG 
set up?  Was there any communication "representing the IETF" since then?

>anyone.  Again, what do you think the IETF's concern here is?

I gather that nobody will raise any objection if someone else was to 
list himself/herself as IETF and add some marketing comment saying 
that the IETF published a "NewIP" specification.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 13:02:06 -0400

> representing the IETF (please see my exchange with Stephen about that).

- The SPFBIS working group (which you chaired) *started* because of
interest within M3AAWG, which was brought to the IETF as a work
proposal.
- The DMARC working group was created because of work on DMARC that
was started by M3AAWG members.
- The ARC experimental protocol that was developed in the DMARC
working group was initially proposed y M3AAWG members.
- The SMTP MTA STS work in the UTA working group was proposed by M3AAWG members.

Those are some things that come to mind.  There is flow in both
directions, and I think it's a healthy relationship.  Though,
repeating: it isn't happening by formal liaison statements, but
instead by joint participation that's, in part, facilitated by me and
by others who participate in both organizations.  I believe that's
working as it should.

> discussions which led to the proposed virtual interim.

If you want details about why DMARC is having a virtual interim
meeting, you should ask that on the DMARC list, not here.  I'm sure
the DMARC chairs will be happy to answer.  In any case, the decision
by the DMARC chairs to schedule a virtual interim meeting has nothing
to do with liaisons.

> the IETF DMARC Working Group?

I don't know what you're asking when you say "any concern".  If you
mean, "Does M3AAWG care about what's happening in the IETF (and DMARC
in particular)?", well, yes, it absolutely does.  And M3AAWG members
are participating in the DMARC working group (and other working
groups).  If you mean, according to the more usual meaning of
"concern", "Is M3AAWG worried about what's happening here?", no, not
that I'm aware of.  As I said, there's a lot of cross-participation
(and I don't mean "cross" in the "angry" sense) and it's a healthy
relationship.

> When was the liaison relationship with M3AAWG set up?

2009.

> Was there any communication "representing the IETF" since then?

I have often given presentations at M3AAWG about what's happening in
the IETF that I think they would be interested in.  I often encourage
people in M3AAWG, both "on mic" and in side conversations, to
participate actively in relevant IETF working groups.  I often answer
questions about the IETF -- what it's doing, how it works, how people
can be part of it -- at M3AAWG, again, both on mic and in side
conversations.

In doing that, yes, I think I'm representing the IETF.  It's never in
the sense that "I'm speaking for the IETF, and the IETF says..."  That
*would* be what formal liaison statements are for, and we have never
done a formal liaison statement to or from M3AAWG.

> that the IETF published a "NewIP" specification.

This is the IETF: *someone* will raise an object to pretty much
anything.  But we don't control press releases or marketing statements
that companies might make.  We can always let people or companies know
that what they said isn't actually correct.  If you care enough, you
could always ask the IETF Trust if they think the statement you cited
infringes on any of the IETF's assets.  Apart from that, I'm not sure
what you want the IETF to do about it.

Barry

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 10:42:48 -0700

Hi Barry,
>by others who participate in both organizations.  I believe that's

I'll comment below instead of focusing on the above.

Ok.

Ok.

Ok.

>done a formal liaison statement to or from M3AAWG.

If I understood the liaison programme correctly, there is some 
overhead on the IAB side as it has to assign one of its members to 
keep an eye on what is going on.  Is it useful to have a liaison 
relationship when there aren't any concerns or a need for formal 
representation?  That is the question which, in my opinion, is useful 
for the IAB to think about.

>anything.  But we don't control press releases or marketing statements

As an off-topic comment, I would say that part of being open is also 
about being open to objections.  When that does not work well, people 
take their work elsewhere.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 14:36:20 -0400

> for the IAB to think about.

There's *some* overhead with pretty much anything that a committee has
to do, but the overhead of managing a liaison relationship that's
working well is quite low.  Yes, there's someone assigned to keep
track of me as M3AAWG liaison manager.  I hear from that IAB member
usually only when the assignee changes, because there isn't much more
to do: I try to send the IAB a routine report once a year, giving a
summary of what's been happening.  If something needs to be raised, I
send the IAB a report about that when it comes up, and I think that
happened once or twice -- not because of a liaison problem, but
because there was a topic that I thought they should be aware of.  And
a couple of times since 2009 the assignee has talked with me about
whether the liaison relationship is still useful, and we decided,
after a chat, that it was.

It's my goal as liaison manager to make sure that the overhead is as
low as I can make it, and that both organizations see some benefit
from the relationship.

> take their work elsewhere.

Indeed, and I certainly agree with both of those statements.

Barry

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 14:31:28 -0700

Dear IAB Chair,

I was searching for liaison reports.  Unfortunately, the link on the 
IAB web site ( https://www.iab.org/liaisons/liaison-mgr-reports/ ) is 
not working correctly.  I assume that the openness (Section 3.6 of 
RFC 2850) allows for those reports to be published.  Such reports 
could be useful information to people responding to IAB requests for 
comments on the IAB appointments.

I would appreciate if the IAB could consider my request to publish 
all the liaison reports.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 14:47:49 -0700

> for the IAB to think about.

I was the IETF liaison to the Open Mobile Alliance for a time.  As there
was very little interchange between the two organizations over the years,
including during my tenure, the IAB chose not to re-appoint anyone and
simply discontinued the role when I stepped down.  Thus, I'm living proof
that the IAB does indeed think about this.

M3AAWG, on the other hand, has a handful of people that attend both their
sessions and ours, and Barry's list of work that's come to us from them is
a good example of why an established liaison is probably worth continuing.

-MSK

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 18:44:56 -0700

S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> writes:

> I would appreciate if the IAB could consider my request to publish all
> the liaison reports.

The IAB liason reports are published as part of the IAB minutes:

Here's an example:

https://www.iab.org/documents/minutes/minutes-2020/iab-minutes-2020-04-15/

-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 21:29:34 -0700

Hi Wes,
>The IAB liason reports are published as part of the IAB minutes:

Thank you for the example.  May I ask what happened to the past 
liaison management reports (please see the link which I mentioned in 
my request)?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Guntur Wiseno Putra <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 21:37:13 +0700

Dear S. Moonesamy,

It may help you --given your recent posts on an interim meeting ...?

It has just been published the "2019 IETF Annual Report"

https://www.ietf.org/blog/annual-report-2019

While it did not explicitly mentioned about "liaison reports" it did about
Interim Meetings webpage (details of agendas, minutes and materials)

IETF Meetings

Interim Meetings (page 5)

https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/interim/

Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

Pada Kamis, 14 Mei 2020, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> menulis:

> Thank you for the example.  May I ask what happened to the past liaison
> management reports (please see the link which I mentioned in my request)?
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy

---

From: Guntur Wiseno Putra <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 00:20:36 +0700

Dear S. Moonesamy,

(By the page "Interim Meetings" suggesting to open the page
"datatacker.ietf" page: )

Is this what you meant about "liasion reports"...?

At the page https://www.datatracker.ietf.org there are options --by
clicking the triple line icon on the up right corner-- among others are
"other" where "liaison statements" are available to open:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/

Regard,
Guntur Wiseno Putra

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 10:52:33 -0700

Dear Guntur,
>Is this what you meant about "liasion reports"...?

No.  Please see the link which I included in the email at 
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/architecture-discuss/shz8nmDJyK_J3GDm0P4gnsXOQ4o

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 23:08:17 +0200

Hello S. Moonesamy,

Thanks for pointing this out. It seems that the page was not correctly taken over when the IAB webpage was moved to a new system in 2011. The pages are restored now. However, as you can see and as noticed on the IAB liaison page itself, we don’t have the practice of collecting periodic report anymore, for a while already.

As noted by Wes already, if reports are sent to the IAB or if liaison managers directly report in an IAB meeting, these are noted and published in the minutes instead. 

Mirja

> On 13. May 2020, at 23:31, S Moonesamy <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Dear IAB Chair,
> 
> I was searching for liaison reports.  Unfortunately, the link on the IAB web site ( https://www.iab.org/liaisons/liaison-mgr-reports/ ) is not working correctly.  I assume that the openness (Section 3.6 of RFC 2850) allows for those reports to be published.  Such reports could be useful information to people responding to IAB requests for comments on the IAB appointments.
> 
> I would appreciate if the IAB could consider my request to publish all the liaison reports.
> 
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 09:33:46 -0700

Dear Mirja,
At 02:08 PM 14-05-2020, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
>Thanks for pointing this out. It seems that the page was not 
>correctly taken over when the IAB webpage was moved to a new system 
>in 2011. The pages are restored now. However, as you can see and as 
>noticed on the IAB liaison page itself, we don't have the practice 
>of collecting periodic report anymore, for a while already.

Thank you for the above explanation.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 08:48:18 -0700

Mirja,

I suggest that the page at https://www.iab.org/liaisons/liaison-mgr-reports/ be updated with a note saying that there aren’t periodic reports and reports received are published in the minutes (and a link to the minutes).

Bob

> On May 14, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hello S. Moonesamy,
>

---

From: Mirja Kuehlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 14:17:46 +0200

Hello Bob,

Thanks for the proposal. I’ll check with the liaison shepherds and the rest of the IAB to make sure we have document the current practice correctly on this page and the IAB liaisons page.

Mirja

> On 18. May 2020, at 17:48, Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Mirja,
>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 16:21:33 +0200

Hello,

Are these liaison reports specific to architecture?

Alex

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 11:54:46 -0700

> liaison management reports (please see the link which I mentioned in

I think someone already answered you, but I don't see it in the response
thread, so just to be absolutely certain your question doesn't go
unanswered: the iab website did indeed have a bug wrt liason statements
being listed in the menu and is now fixed.

https://www.iab.org/liaisons/liaison-mgr-reports/
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 15:54:05 -0700

Hi Wes,
>https://www.iab.org/liaisons/liaison-mgr-reports/

Thanks for making those liaison notes available.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 11:20:23 -0700

> Thanks for making those liaison notes available.

To be fair: I had *nothing* to do with it (and deserve no thanks for
said effort).  I'm merely making sure your question got answered :-)
-- 
Wes Hardaker
USC/ISI

---

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 16:44:19 -0700

Hi Wes,
>said effort).  I'm merely making sure your question got answered :-)

In my opinion that deserves a thank you. :-)

Regards,
S. Moonesamy