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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, July 01, 2013 10:11:19 PM Franck Martin wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2013, at 3:14 PM, John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> And there have recently been some detail, independent reviews that
> >> are prompted a document revision that will be issued within days.
> > 
> > While I don't doubt that the next version will be better, I think that
> > the dmarc.org group needs to make up its mind and either get a
> > reasonably chartered IETF WG that says no gratuitous changes to the
> > bits, contribute all of the drafts to the WG, and take its chances. or
> > else contribute none of them and just send them in via the independent
> > stream.
> > 
> > I understand why you might want to tell the IETF that it can only
> > change the minor documents, not the major one, but I don't see why the
> > IETF would be interested.
> 
> This is my take on the process so far.
> 
> The spec has been handed over to IETF already. IETF can do what it likes
> with it. So I don't think the DMARC.org group worries (much) about what can
> be changed or not.
> 
> The question is: is there sufficiently enough work to be done in the current
> spec (besides editorial) that warrants an IETF WG to work on the spec?
> 
> So far the answer to that question is no. The reason: even has a non IETF
> WG, the DMARC.org group has been listening to all comments and the
> deployment experience has shown the mechanism is robust across multiple
> segments.
> 
> So the logic conclusion: the spec needs to be AD sponsored to be on the
> standard track.
> 
> But I realize this will not stop conspiracy theories.
> 
> If I'm mistaken, please review the spec and answer the question with
> specifics.

Personally, I'm getting tired of investing time in it.  It seems like the only 
response to comments amounts to "La La La La, I can't hear you".

Of course I've no idea what you DMARC folks are doing in private, but that's 
part of the problem.  There's no transparency and it seems so far not a lot of 
openness to outside input.

Scott K