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

["John R Levine" <[e-mail]>]

We do seem to be suffering from a failure to communicate, don't we?

According to the subject lines of the messages we've been exchanging, 
we're talking about a BoF for DMARC.  I hope we agree that the reason to 
have a BoF is to see if a topic merits a working group.

According to what you've said, the DMARC technical draft is good enough 
that you'll send it in as an independent submission, no WG involved. 
Franck says that if people have comments on it, they can send them to the 
dmarc.org list and that group will listen, which matches my experience.

The only other document I'm aware of is the BCP draft.  That draft is a 
mess, but the dmarc.org group who wrote the technical draft seems entirely 
able to fix it into something reasonable and send it in as another 
independent submission, leaving nothing for a WG to do.

Perhaps my reference to volunteer time was confusing.  I realize that an 
independent submission takes some time from the AD*, IESG*, and whoever 
looks at it in last call, but a WG is a lot more with chairs, members, 
document editors, and whoever.  It's the latter group who don't need to 
spend time on DMARC.

Unless I'm missing something important here, it seems so obvious that 
DMARC doesn't need a WG that perhaps we should can the BoF and give the 
slot back, since I gather there's a lot of other groups who could use it.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

* - who are stuck either way