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

[Franck Martin <[e-mail]>]

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.