►
From YouTube: IETF101-DMARC-20180319-1740
Description
DMARC meeting session at IETF101
2018/03/19 1740
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/proceedings/
A
B
B
B
B
D
B
This
is
not
the
hallway
note.
Well,
it
just
has
our
logo
on
it,
because
I
use
the
company
template
when
I
made
this,
but
anyway,
all
right,
here's
the
agenda.
Does
anybody
have
any
issues
with
the
agenda?
Okay,
and
does
anybody
have
any
issues
with
the
agenda?
Anything
they
think
I
don't
break
down
the
next
steps
on
this
part
of
the
agenda,
but
when
we
get
to
the
next
steps,
there's
a
whole
sub
agenda
for
that.
Are
there
questions
or
comments
about
the
agenda.
B
A
Okay,
so
I
just
released
a
dash
12
version
yesterday
because
they
opened
up
the
well
Sunday
evening.
I
guess
it
was
that
was
yesterday,
and
it's
been
pointed
out
to
me
that
a
number
of
the
proposed
changes
were
accidentally
overlooked.
So
I
already
have
some
tweaks
to
do
on
that.
Otherwise,
the
main
changes
were
taking
all
of
the
outstanding
questions
and
moving
them
into
tickets
in
the
ticket
tracker.
Now
so
I'd
invite
people
to
look
through
the
ticket
tracker
and
comment
and
respond
to
the
various
things
there.
E
To
Basinski,
since
its
external
and
not
sure,
standards
track,
you
could
do
that
or
just
move
it
to
the
appendix
but
I
like
moving
into
an
acceptor
document,
because
then
you
can
sort
of
rev
it
regularly.
D
Jim
hi
Jim
Fenton
I've
liked
the
idea
of
it
being
in
separate
document
largely
because
it
when
people
say
I've,
implemented
arc
or
I've
implemented,
B
mark
well,
D
marks
already
done,
but
when
I've
implemented
arc,
it's
important
to
know
whether
they've
been
you
know
whether
they've
implemented
reporting
or
whether
they've
implemented
some
sort
of
an
enforcement
mechanism,
and
it's
a
I
I
find
a
lot
of
the
characterizations
about
D
mark.
You
know
that
I've
implemented
B
mark
I,
don't
know
what
that
means.
Right.
I
would
like
that
to
be
more
clear,
going
forward.
B
A
Know
the
the
problem
that
we've
seen
with
DES
mark
this
is
Kurt's
business
card.
Speaking,
sorry
that
the
problem
with
that
we've
seen
with
DES
mark
is
that
the
specification
as
it
currently
stands
has
at
least
three
different
components.
One
is
I,
publish
and
expect
people
to
adhere
to
my
published
policy.
A
The
second
one
is
I,
enforce
upon
ingress,
said
policies
or
do
something
with
them,
and
the
third,
relatively
independent
component
is
I,
generate
reports
having
to
do
with
the
traffic
that
I
received,
and
so
people
will
say
that
I've
implemented
d
mark
and
may
have
only
done
one
of
those
three
things.
Okay,.
B
A
D
F
Yeah
with
I
mean
with
Demark
the
problem
isn't
so
much
the
labeling.
The
problem
is
the
work.
I
mean
I've
done.
I
I've
implemented
Demark
checking
on
my
inbound
mail,
but
actually
putting
everything
in
a
database
and
then
summarized
in
the
database
every
day,
but
all
that
that's
a
bunch
of
extra
work
which
I
will
do
someday
Cody
seems
to
and
I
sympathize
with
the
problem.
I,
don't
think
putting
in
separate
documents
will
solve
anything.
Stupid
will
still
say:
I've
implemented
arc,
I
mean
if
you
care.
F
Why
don't
we
add
a
section
that
just
you
know
defines
you
know,
arc
signing
arcane
validation,
you
know,
and
then
you
say
you
know
just
you
know
get
to
come
up
with
snappy
names
for
the
parts
that
people
might
do
separately
and
then
you
can
just
say
you
know,
and
then
you
can
recommend
you
can
label
yourself.
I
have
implemented
our
chain
validation.
You
know,
I,
don't
think
that
that
is
at
least
as
likely
to
get
people
to
admit
what
they
did
is
to
put
them
in
separate
documents.
B
Okay,
Dave
Crocker,
while
valid
the
problem
with
Jim's
point
is
that
it
requires
making
each
aspect
of
a
service
separate
DCAM,
publishing,
signing
versus
DCAM
reception,
validation,
Demark
has
three
components,
so
it
needs
three
dots.
I
think
the
original
focus
on
expected
rate
of
change
is
more
helpful.
A
B
A
B
A
really
good
reason
to
go
there
we
anyway,
we
can
continue
that
discussion
on
the
list,
but
I
think
we
have
the
all-in-one,
while
experimental
plus
one
says
Tim
Dragan
yeah
all
right,
so
the
Dave
says
the
benefit
of
keeping
it
in
a
single
dock.
As
likelihood
readers
will
see
it,
which
I
agree
with
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
get
okay.
A
B
E
A
Other
things
around
the
arc
protocol
document
is
that
we
now
have
an
explicit
dependency
on
70601
bisque,
which
we
will
come
to
shortly
in
the
status
of
other
documents
section
so
because
we
have
fobbed
some
of
the
text
and
structure
and
things
like
that
off
to
70601
bits.
I,
don't
think
we
can
officially
publish
this
until
we
kind
of
co-published
70601
Biss
Marie.
Is
that
your
understanding,
yeah?
Okay,
that
was
a
yes
from
Marie
in
the
audience.
Otherwise,
content
wise
I've
not
really
had
any
feedback
of
objections
to
the
content.
A
It's
all
been
around
making
the
explanation
of
art
clearer,
especially
for
people
who
are
coming
to
the
work
de
novo,
and
it
would
be
great
if
anyone
does
have
content
objections
to
raise
them
really
soon,
because,
with
the
exception
of
some
minor
tweaks,
I
think
that
we're
pretty
close
for
our
last
call.
Okay,
Alexi
is
coming
to
the
mic
and.
B
C
A
B
Say
expect
this
is
12,
expect
a
13
yep
very
soon,
because
we
lost
some
of
this
weekend's
updates
that
yep
we'll
get
in
yeah
Seth
says
only
other
question
is,
if
anything
is
missing
from
the
experimental
consideration
section
that
should
be
reflected
in
the
doc
for
last
call
Seth.
Do
you
have
any
anything
any
specific.
B
B
A
The
usage
document
has
only
had
some
minor
tweaks
along
the
way.
I
suspect
that
it's
still
a
bit
of
a
hodgepodge
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
heavily
we
need
to
pursue
it
at
this
point,
because
we'd
really
like
to
get
some
real
practical
experience
and
then
be
able
to
codify
that
into
the
usage
document.
I'm,
not
sure
how
much
this
overlaps
with
the
D
mark
usage
document
right.
So.
B
E
A
Thank
you,
so
I
will
put
that
out
on
the
list,
also
to
confirm
and
we'll
plan
to
just
continue
revising
the
draft
with
ongoing
learning
through
the
experimental
period
and
then
have
something
toward
the
end
that
we
can
put
out
and
Seth
comments
on
the
jabber
Channel.
He
agrees
for
post
experimental
mic.
A
A
G
F
A
B
Out
there,
so
the
expectation
is
that
this
would
be
rolled
into
the
base
spec
for
the
standards
track.
Correct,
yes,
yep,
okay,
further
comments,
questions
on
the
multiple
singing
algorithms,
sorry
signing
I'm,
just
thinking
back
to
cabaret
again,
yeah
Steve
Jones,
says
okay
offline
comment:
I,
don't
know
if
that
means
that
he
doesn't
want
me
to
say
it.
But
I'll
say
it
anyway.
If
I
remember
correctly,
the
usage
dr.
arc
was
originally
needed
to
explain
why
and
how
people
would
make
use
of
arc.
H
B
A
I
Oh,
an
abyss-
I,
don't
have
anything
outstanding,
I
was
holding
on
to
it,
just
to
make
sure
that
Alexi
was
comfortable
with
us
dragging
a
whole
bunch
of
issues
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
Demark
into
this
update,
just
for
the
sake
of
not
doing
multiple
updates.
So
one
document,
so
with
that
clearance
now
I
have
AI
stuff
to
add,
I
have
a
request
from
D
Krupp
to
add
header
dot
a
into
this
and
I.
Think
that
is
all
that
I
was
waiting
on
so
I
need
to
I
owe
the
Working
Group
one
update.
I
B
I
B
Zero
and
there's
Kutcher
be
zero,
zero
and
there's
working
group
zero,
zero
right.
A
I
C
B
B
And
so
the
what
what
this
working
group
cares
about
in
relation
to
what
Marie
just
said
is
that
we
have
agreed
we,
the
chairs
and
the
ad,
have
agreed
to
put
in
some
stuff
that
is
not
related
to
this
working
group
in
order
to
avoid
a
second
Rev
of
70601.
Yes,
and
that
means
that
that
is
in
way
of
getting
it
published
for
us,
we
don't
think
that's
a
problem,
because
we
don't
think
it
will
cause
any
delay.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
the
working
group
was
aware
of
that
point
yep.
I
I
A
I
B
Working
group
last
call
coming
soon
to
a
theater
near
you,
excellent
all
right
that
takes
care
of
the
other
documents
that
are
currently
in,
and
so
we
now
get
to
the
next
steps,
which
is
where
we're
nice
and
early.
We
have
plenty
of
time
for
that,
which
is
what
I
had
hoped
for.
We'll
start
off
with.
B
One
of
the
goals
of
this
working
group
was
to
document
the
issues
that
the
community
has
with
the
operation
of
Demark
as
it
is,
and
then
look
at
what
we
need
to
do
to
get
us
to
a
standard
version
of
d
mark
mark
is
one
step
in
that
of
helping
us
resolve.
Some
of
the
issues
that
d
mark
is
causing
assuming
correct,
assuming
arc
actually
does
help
with
this.
What
do
we
need
to
do
as
a
working
group
to
move
forward
to
a
proposed
standard
version
of
d
mark
so.
A
I'll
ask
the
first
question
of
you
predicated
that
there
was
an
assumption
that
you
were
predicating
upon
their
that
arc
actually
works
to
to
mitigate
those
problems.
Does
that
mean
that
we
need
to
put
everything
on
the
shelf
for
some
period
of
time
until
we
get
arc
enough
enough
operational
experience
across
a
large
enough
set
of
operators
to
know
that
arc
does
or
does
not
mitigate
the
problems
as.
B
B
B
Anyone
in
the
room
have
anything
to
say:
oh
here's,
Dave
Dave
Crocker,
given
the
degree
of
IETF
objection
to
demarks
lack
of
comfortable
processing
through
intermediaries.
I
doubt
D
mark
can
go
without
it
where,
if
I
presume
means
some
success
in
arc
or
a
similar
mitigation.
Yes,
he
says
and
Neil
is
trapped.
Madly
trying
to
get
to
a
microphone
here
comes
Neil
Jenkins,
so
he
doesn't
even
have
to
say
his
name
go
for
it.
Okay,.
A
J
Okay,
maybe
then
I
should
rephrase
that,
as
from
my
heart,
fast
mail
hat
on
a
slightly
smaller
provider,
we
have
we
are
implanting
this
and
having
to
do
quite
a
lot,
a
lot
of
it,
but
not
quite
the
rest
of
it.
Yet
we
have
yet
to
see
whether
we
get
sufficient
volume,
I
guess
to
build
up
the
trust
mechanisms
that
we
can
accurately
use
this
I
guess
and
whether
that
can
be
extrapolated
out
to
other
providers
at
a
similar
scale.
Fair.
B
H
B
With
a
an
arc
chain,
you
may
have
multiple
arc
sets
in
there
of
different
domains.
At
the
end,
you
have
to
make
a
decision
of
whether
that
arc
chain
is
okay
to
override
the
the
Demark
policy
of
the
sender,
and
that
is
totally
out
of
scope
of
the
spec.
But
everybody
has
to
make
that
decision,
and
we
don't
know
how
that
decision
will
be
made
or
how
abusive
domains
in
the
arc
and
an
arc
set
from
an
abusive
domain
may
be
dealt
with
and
Neil
says.
That's
the
important
bit
Jim.
D
Jim
Fenton
again
I
I,
think
one
thing
that
we
should
consider
is
that
there
are
going
to
be
some
use.
Cases
for
email
that
are
going
to
break
with
Demark
plus
arc
I
mean
the
one
that
I
can
think
of.
Is
the
sentence
and
send
this
news
article
to
a
friend
or
basically,
the
the
newspaper
site,
spoofs
your
email
address.
Now
we
can
decide
whether
those
are
important
or
not
I'm,
just
kind
of
pointing
out
that
those
exist
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
should
clarify
there.
Why
do
you
think
that.
A
A
B
Yes,
I'll
buy
that
the
it's
it's
the
precedent
that
arc
sets
that
arc
arc
is
setting
up
an
expectation
that
you're
going
to
use
some
sort
of
reputation
or
trust
system
to
agree
that
this
arc
chain
is
okay
and
you
can
apply
that
same
reasoning
to
the
New
York
Times
forwarding
thing.
But
anyway,
okay,
yeah.
D
What
we
might
want
to
consider-
and-
and
maybe
this
is
something
that
can
be
done
in
parallel
with
the
experimentation-
is
what
sort
of
breakages
might
be
acceptable
breakages
and
what
sorts
of
breakages
might
not
be
acceptable.
Breakages
or
you
know,
this
is
just
sort
of
a
hypothetical
I'm
throwing
out
that
that
some
things
are
going
to
break,
and
we
might
want
to
think
in
advance
about
what
the
criteria
are
that
we're
going
to
use
when
we,
when
we
do
get
the
experimental
results.
Okay,.
A
B
Dave
says:
Barry's
point
is
worth
a
separate,
careful
discussion.
It's
not
the
first
time
this
scenario
has
come
up
for
arc.
It
might
not
be
possible
to
make
it
work
adequately,
but
I
think
it
might
actually
be
useful
and
Tim
says
of
all
the
identified
Interop
issues.
Calendaring
is
one
of
the
sharper
unaddressed
breakage
points
so
he's
bringing
up
something
we
haven't
talked
about
here.
Yet
Dave
continues.
Here's
a
teaser
for
why
it
might
work
normal
use
of
arc
requires
having
a
basis
for
trusting
the
first
arc
signer.
So
would
the
third-party
origination?
B
A
G
B
B
A
A
A
B
Says
arc
helps
where
an
intermediary
breaks,
authentication
information,
allowing
it
to
be
encapsulated
and
transmitted
when
the
originator
never
authenticates,
properly
begin
with
that's
out
of
scope
and
I'll
point
out
to
Seth
we're
not
talking
about
arc
anymore.
We
are
talking
about
the
the
D
mark
spec
and
how
we
get
that
to
propose
standards.
So,
let's
get
out
of
the
the
mote,
the
thinking
mode
that
we're
talking
about
arc
right
now
other
comments
about
what
we
need
to
do
to
move
D
mark
forward.
A
B
So
Kurt
is
pointing
out.
Perhaps
we
need
to
restructure
the
Demark
spec
as
part
of
the
proposed
standard.
Yeah
version
Seth
reminds
us
that
Dave
called
out.
We
should
get
open
issues
with
D
mark
into
the
issue
tracker.
We
do
have
them
in
the
wiki,
but
we
should
create
a
separate
tracker
issue
for
each
we
will.
The
chairs
will
take
on
the
responsibility
for
that
Marie
that
sticks
his
thumb
up
in
the
air
and
everybody
else
is
reading
their
emails.
B
A
Still
feeling
like
I,
don't
know
what
the
next
step
is.
I
do
I
mean
we've
had
this
discussion.
We've
identified
some
open
issues,
some
of
which
we
knew
about
before
that
we
continue
to
chew
on,
but
I
mean
the
the
nominal
next
step
that
was
identified
according
to
our
Charter.
Was
writing
up
this
usage
of
Demark
sort
of
document,
which
is
still
sort
of
an
open
question
about?
Does
that
bring
value?
Is
that
a
necessary
precondition
to
moving?
Do
you
mark
to
propose
standard
I'll.
B
Leave
that
question
open,
well,
Tim,
says
draft
Demark
usage
guide
required
to
exit
phase
2.
Does
it
expired,
milestone,
I
will
say,
I
think
the
very
next
step
is,
as
we've
said,
to
put
to
separate
out
the
issues
that
remain
with
Demark
that
need
to
be
dealt
with
as
we
move
it
forward
and
start
discussing
how
we
resolve
those
issues
and
Tim
says
no,
not
an
expired,
milestone.
Sorry,
an
expired
dock
right.
A
A
Dock
and
I
think
that
some
of
the
mailing
list
conversation
recently
was
around
the
point
of
we
have
a
document,
albeit
expired,
and
that
seemed
to
meet
the
official
definition
of
having
a
dog
for
the
milestone.
So
we
could
in
theory
exit
phase
two,
but
then
it's
unclear
whether
we
can
move
on
past
phase
three.
If
this
is
a
a
charter
required
deduction.
B
A
D
B
The
in
Tim
Tims,
demote
Tim,
is
the
has
the
pen
on
the
de
mark
usage
guide.
Should
we
give
Tim
the
go-ahead
to
post
that
as
a
working
group
draft
to
get
us
moving
on
that?
Does
anyone
object
to
doing
that
and
using
Tim's
version
as
a
starting
point
for
the
D
mark
usage
guy
hearing
and
seeing
no
objections?
I
will
post
that
to
the
list
for
objections
and
give
it
a
week
or
two
and
then
we'll
move
on
further
discussion
on
moving
de
mark
forward.
C
C
B
Okay,
Tim,
Tim
Kurt
has
he's
sitting
next
to
me,
so
I
think
he's
Tim.
You
understand
that
the
Kurt
has
two
issues
that
he
picked
up
from
a
discussion
within
CSC,
so
go.
A
For
it
sure
the
first
one
here
we
surfaced
on
the
list
a
couple
of
months
ago
and
they
have
observed
through
their
magical
Demark
reporting
analysis
software,
that
people
are
attempting
to
spoof
domains
that
do
not
exist
under
Godot
UK
and
because
of
the
methodology
for
figuring
out.
What
domain
to
query
there
is
no
way
to,
in
a
straightforward
sense,
protecting
non-existent
org
domain
because
one
never
queries
the
order
minus
one
or
the
last
public
domain
to
get
a
record
that
says
hey.
A
If
something
doesn't
exist,
then
it
shouldn't
be
sending
mail
and
apparently
a
lot
of
people,
a
lot
of
receivers,
don't
necessarily
say
if
the
domain
doesn't
exist,
maybe
I
shouldn't
accept
mail.
So
the
question
is:
is
this
something
that
other
than
having
a
trick?
Dns
server,
which
will
answer
with
text
records?
That
say,
send
me
a
report
of
all
these
people
who
are
attempting
to
spoof
non-existent
domains?
Is
there
a
good
way
to
deal.
B
B
J
Jenkins
I'm
just
wondering
whether
this
is
actually
no
by
much
if
the
receiver
could
check
if
I
guess
so,
I
have
a
bad
thing
you
through
there
I
was
thinking.
If
the
receivers
not
checking
whether
the
domain
just
doesn't
exist,
then
it's
unlikely
to
do
Demark
checks
as
well,
but
actually
the
domain
does
exist.
It's
just
this
subdomain
right.
A
Let's
say,
for
example,
junk
of
UK
does
not
exist
or
the
one
that
they
point
out
is
actively
abused
as
tax
duck
of
the
UK.
It
does
not
exist,
and
yet
there
are
quite
a
few
fraud
things
going
on
and
apparently
getting
through
to
people's
mailboxes,
because
my
receivers
are
accepting
the
mail
and
then
saying
oh
yeah,
I,
happily
accepted
ten
million
messages
from
text.
The.
J
A
B
A
dave
says
this
is
C,
was
both
useful
and
unrelated
to
D
Marc
David.
Do
you
still
think
it's
unrelated
and
Seth
says
it
is
related
to
D
Marc
because
of
how
an
organizational
domain
is
defined
and
there
are
instances
where
the
organization
is
the
top
level
and
they
don't
no
longer
have
control
of
Demark
policy.
B
Okay,
so
I
don't
think
that
that
yes,
this
is
a
good
topic.
I,
don't
know
that
we
need
more
face
time
on
the
topic.
I
think
we
need
to
discuss
this
more
after
we
start
moving
the
the
spec
Dave
says.
The
relationship
to
Demark
needs
to
be
made
very
careful
and
I
certainly
agree
with
that.
This
whole
issue
is
difficult.
B
A
The
second
item
is
that
they
are
finding
in
dealing
with
some
of
the
organizations
within
the
their
span
of
control,
that
it
would
be
very
helpful
to
get
slightly
more
information
than
is
currently
available
in
an
aggregate
report,
and
they
have
indications
from
people
that
they
would
be
willing
to
send
more
information,
but
they're
not
willing
to
send
what's
asked
for
in
a
forensic
report.
So
their
question
was
whether
or
not
it
would
make
sense
to
define
something
in
between
that
could
have
a
bit
more
information.
That
would
be
helpful
for
a
company.
A
Let's
say
that
it's
trying
to
figure
out
where
weird
bits
of
mail
are
emerging
yeah
in
a
positive
sense.
So
let's
say
they've
got
a
marketing
arm.
That
has
done
something
strange
and
they're
emitting
mail.
It
would
be
helpful
to
have
a
report
that
could
help
identify
that
weird
mail
stream
without
necessarily
having
to
go.
As
far
as
forensic
reports
tim.
B
A
B
Wait
up
sorry,
we
have.
We
have
a
couple
on
Roberto
going
back
to
the
previous
topic,
Ned
comments
that
he
agrees,
he's
not
convinced
that
this
should
be
addressed
with
DES
mark
and
Steve
Jones
says.
Perhaps
we
need
to
be
clear
how
much
freedom
the
report
generator
has
with
respect
to
what
details
are
included
in
the
forensic
report.
Tim.
E
Tim
with
sinski
they
could
set
that
TTL
on
that
wild
card.
Tech's
record
in
W
K
a
lot
higher
than
1800
seconds,
but
your
butt.
Actually,
your
your
question
about
that.
The
between
forensic
and
and,
let's
say,
you're,
a
large
enterprise
company,
let's
say
sales
force,
and
you
have
marketing
groups
that
are
doing
stuff.
You
have
no
idea,
you
want
to
figure
out
who
they
are,
but
you
don't
want
to
block
them.
Why
you
go
track
down
and
go.
You
know
that's
directly.
D
I'll
mention
one
possible
tie-in
with
what
we
were
talking
about
with
Demark,
which
is
the
association
with
the
from
address
in
the
email,
as
opposed
to
the
envelope
address
or
other
things.
D
mark
is
one
place
that
we
establish
some
some
relationship
there
and
I
think
if
it
were
done
outside
of
D
mark.
That
relationship
would
be
a
lot
more
tenuous.
A
Sizing
I
I
suggested
to
them,
and
they
said
yes,
they
would
be
willing
to
throw
something
together,
but
I
only
met
with
them
last
Thursday,
so
we've
not
seen
anything
out
of
that
yet,
but
yeah
well,
we'll
see
what
they
have
to
propose
or
specifically
request
and
then
Tim.
Maybe
you
would
have
something
you
could
throw
on
the
list.
As
far
as
content,
you
would
find
helpful,
so
I'm
sorry
I
was
distracted
when
Alexei
made
his
comment.
What.
A
B
A
B
B
A
B
K
Yes,
oh
yeah,
I'm
kinkiest,
Castle,
Rock
10.
So
thank
you
for
joining.
Thank
you
for
your
dice
for
this
address.
So
today.
So
yes,
I'm,
so
buddy
stone,
yeah
I
saw
I'm
here
now,
so
it
was
also
here.
That's
all
David,
so
maybe
so
yeah.
He
will
help
me
yeah.
So
if
necessary,
because
origin
is
all
my
religious
or
something
a
pariah,
also
some
3-4
to
some
well
yeah.
A
K
Yeah
the
agenda,
so
maybe
so
yeah
at
this
time
as
I'd
like
to
share
about
the
soap,
a
dirty
mug,
again
yeah
and
also
so
I
have
a
harpy.
So
if
you
could
an
interesting
or
a
concern
something
about
the
Saudis
document,
so
that's
so
it's
good
opportunity
for
you
and
us
to
join
a
to
discuss
your
mailing
list
were
so
activity
or
especially
in
prevent
a
SOHO,
dispatcher
d-mac,
so
yeah
yeah.
So
what
things
are
so?
But
your
Demark
again
yeah?
K
So
maybe
so
you
know
so
there
are
a
case
where
so
the
amok
evaluation
to
press,
even
with
that
Saudi
mustard,
a
code
so
yeah
they
see
but
Jung
beta
fryer.
So
such
a
deserter
so
yeah
the
marker
as
a
so
Perdita,
the
Saudi
Mac
pass
so
yeah.
So
first,
so
we
named
a
so
this
mechanism
as
a
supercharged,
a
Mac,
so
yeah
here
is
the
overview
for
virtually
marks.
K
So
yes,
so,
as
you
can
see,
maybe
so
yeah
at
the
current
document,
so
maybe
so
I
was
copy,
the
only
so
arraignment
ax,
so
without
the
so
the
record
may
be
so
yeah
in
some
cases
so
yeah.
We
so
Thole
so
and
not
know,
but
the
so
has
resulted
pass
so
yeah
here
either.
So
so
we
simulate
how
opportunity
mock-ups
to
efficient
operation.
K
It
I
saw
some
Japanese
ISPs,
maybe
so
they
are
so
a
medium
mailboxes
or
also
major
company
in
Japan,
but
the
so
he
the
so
only
so
Japan
limited
so
desert
may
be
so
yeah
I
hope
a
so
you
are
oversee
ISP
company
so
joining
us.
Also,
this
also
verification
desert,
research,
man,
yeah
and
also
so
yeah
I
wish
air
so
how
to
calculate
or
a
simulator.
So
for
this
verification,
so
yeah,
but
so
yeah.
K
As
far
as
so
I
confirm,
I
saw
in
only
Japan,
maybe
so
yeah
budget
in
marketing
potential,
for
so
yeah
two
liters
or
in
mock
pass
so
again
so
yeah,
maybe
so
I
actually
side
easy
pass,
or
some
commented
oh
yeah
yeah.
So
maybe
so
some
people
may
have
doubt
about
the
budget
eMac,
so
yeah
I
understand
so
their
opinion,
but
so
anyway,
so
yeah,
please
so
discuss
about
the
budget
image
again.
So
when
I
saw
budget
America,
so
maybe
so
yeah
I
so
I
mean
so
yeah.
K
K
Yes,
so
a
also,
so
maybe
so
why
we
need
to
document
for
budget
Emacs.
So
yes,
so
you
know,
some
Microsoft
was
already
adopted
so
based
against
process,
so
yeah
for
original
totemic
policy
and
the
other
idea
so
yeah
we
already
understand
so
Tiaras
so
difference
between
so
budget
email,
cancel
or
eternity
mark
so
specification.
K
Yes,
so
in
case
of
us,
oh
no
Democratic
also
idiot
called
it
should
be
unknown
at
the
identity
mark
or
attorney
mark,
but
also
I'd
like
to
change
as
so
disappoint
us
so
yeah
in
a
Soviet
City
in
buddy
mark
working
group
also
so
yeah
yeah.
It
is
so
current
to
update
our
so
so
we
are
not
only
so
documentation,
but
also
so
we
already
studied
so
impedimenta
testing
yeah
run
over
so
militant
program.
They
also
may
be
in
your
future.
K
So
we
with
support
this
or
open
D
mark
and
also
yeah
I,
understand
so
yeah.
So
we
need
to
more
much
discuss
about
a
some
issue.
Yes
actually
saw
some
members
of
comment
to
us
about
the
so
a
document
yeah
so
finally,
so
yeah,
but
the
next
yeah.
So,
as
I
mentioned
before
so
yeah,
we
need
to
implement
or
academic
office
or
so
yeah
I'm
also,
so
they
work
mentor
so
budget
in
McCall
deceiver
as
I'm,
so
Microsoft
other
a
Korea.
K
So
that
is
information
or
affected
for
budget
America,
not
only
Japan
ISP,
but
also
OPA
CSIC
isomeric
are
providers
also
so
yeah,
so
discussion,
yeah,
so
yeah.
So
lastly,
so
yeah
is
there
any
possibility
so
to
treat
backing
group
item
or
a
so
I
continue
to
discussion
in
your
so
this
working
group
for
so
Fatima
yeah,
so
yeah
I
hope
so
yeah?
Maybe
so
can
we
do
this
document
together?
So
yeah.
K
A
B
B
Into
the
picture,
but
so
does
SPF,
but
I
I'm,
not
getting
how
without
a
Demark
record,
published
I,
don't
see
the
value
in
putting
a
de
mark
result
in
authentication
results.
We
have
an
SPF
result
and
we
have
a
deacon
result,
and
then
we
already
have
people
making
their
decisions
on
delivering
the
message
based
on
those
two
results:
I
don't
see
how
putting
a
de
mark
authentication
results
when
there
is
no
D
mark
record
benefits
us
Neil.
J
Jenkins
I
agree
with
Barry
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
information,
you're
adding
that's
not
already.
President
present
in
the
authentication
results
and
acting
on
this
information
is,
if
there's
no
policy
from
the
sender
at
this
point,
it's
it's
just
whatever
policies
or
the
the
receiver
is
deciding
to
implement.
So
there's
nothing
really
standardized
that
I
guess
you
could
make
some
recommendations
of
things
that
might
work
in
the
real
world,
but
really
this
is
all
the
receivers
responsibility
to
work
out.
J
B
J
J
B
B
L
E
B
It's
worth
bringing
this
forward
now
and
discussing
whether
we
think
yeah,
it's
value
I'm
as
I
said
I'm
reluctant
to
spend
resources
of
the
working
group
on
signing
with
such
little
value
agreed.
Also.
My
other
comment
was:
if
you
haven't
signed
a
blue
sheet,
please
do
so
yep
I'll
even
write
here.
Okay,
we
have
two
more
minutes
for
further
discussion
of
this
or
anything
else
you
want
to
bring
up
or
is
there
any
more
discussion
of
the
virtual
Demark?
So
I
guess
I'll
ask
the
question.
A
B
B
And
what,
while
they're
discussing
this,
is
there
as
there
any
other
any
other
things
we
need
to
discuss
in
the
30
seconds
we
have
left
Ned
freed
says:
boil
it
down
exactly
what
is
this
additional
header
field
telling
us?
Yes,
that's
what
several
of
us
are
asking
so
and
anything
else.
We
need
to
discuss.
K
B
K
B
B
Just
want
to
add
one
thing
that
Steve
Jones
just
said:
the
only
place
this
would
be
seen
is
within
the
receiver
or
if
the
message
is
forwarded,
the
receiver
is
free
to
do
whatever
they
want
internally.
What
would
be
the
impact
of
an
additional
D
mark
equals
value?
If
the
message
is
forwarded,
answer
discussion
on
the
list
and
thank
you
particularly
to
the
remote
participants
for
spending
the
time
with
us
by
everybody,
but.