2. WG Milestone/Phase Overview (chairs) 5 minutes http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki 3. Milestone 1 Review (Tim Draegen) 20 minutes http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/MilestoneOneWiki Tim: summary of situation to date, John: does scope include changes to DKIM? Barry: no, but could recharter to change scope, or spin up a DKIM+ WG Tim: data collection milestone, lots of data can categorize into supergroups? John: suggest mail that originates with DMARC OK then forwarded and changed, vs. mail that started somewhere else Dave C/Pete: use 5598 terminology here, please Tim: milestone 1 is done (will try to create a list of MUA authors, sort of analogous to W3C) Doug Otis: this changes the meaning of the From: author, can we put it back? Kurt Anderson: don't close milestone 1 until we clean up the terminology) Elizabeth Z: data on flows, notably compound indirect flows there's a surprising amount of double indirect mail, ~10% of list mail, lots at universities. So multiple hops are important. Doug: this is just about phishing Eliz, others: no, it's more Pete: multiple hop mail all starts compliant? Kurt, John: no Eliz: forwarded is smaller pile, but it's mail people care about 4. Milestone 2 discussion & kick off (Tim Draegen) 20 minutes http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/MilestoneTwoWiki Eliot Lear: will there be an ID describing these issues? Yes. Pete (answering question): interim phone confs are just dandy, so long as they're minuted on the list Barry: must be scheduled as virtual interim, can use new jitsi tools Tim: asked for interest in interim, about 1/3 raised hands Pete: design team is a small group tasked by chairs to create a thing to bring back to the WG 5. AOB 10 minutes Murray: final DMARC base draft posted Brett: can we add new deliverables? Pete: milestones are local to group, can change, new deliverables in charter need IESG approval but dividing them into documents etc. is local Kurt: what's the schedule before Dallas? Tim: finish milestone 1, editors create draft