Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 7/1/2013 6:33 PM, John Levine wrote:
>> A working group is for technical work.  We've solicited suggestions for
>> incremental technical work at least twice in two forums and there has
>> been no constituency developed for any near-term work.  If you know of
>> work to be done and can develop community support for it, please,
>> please, please document it.
>
> If reviewing the spec is off the table,

That's not what I said.


 > I don't see any work other
 > than cleaning up the BCP.

If you mean the "Using" draft, it needs considerably more than cleaning up.


> Since the dmarc.org group seems to have a working process to write
> drafts adequate to publish using member employees and consultants, I
> see no reason for the IETF to invest volunteer cycles on it.

Sorry you are not a fan of the individual submission path for the IETF 
stream.

Oh, wait:

    RFC 6713
    RFC 6143
    RFC 5518

These appear to be RFCs you authored that were through the IETF's 
individual submission path and RFC 5518 (VBR) appears to be Proposed 
Standard.

So now I'm confused about what your objection is.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net