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

[Scott Kitterman <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, July 01, 2013 09:15:57 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 7/1/2013 8:41 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > On Monday, July 01, 2013 07:46:54 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> >> On 7/1/2013 7:40 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >>> On Monday, July 01, 2013 04:12:00 PM Dave Crocker wrote:
> >>>> Let me repeat:  better writing; no technical changes.
> >>> 
> >>> I disagree.  I've been saying repeatedly that I think that the policy
> >>> overrides are a layering violation that should be removed.  They are bad
> >>> design.
> >> 
> >> Yes you have.
> >> 
> >> And where is the community constituency that supports that view?
> > 
> > How many experts on the policy mechanism DMARC wants to mess with are
> > involved in the discussion?  So far, DMARC is pretty much a self-licking
> > ice cream cone.  To claim the lack of broad community support for a
> > particular change is a reason not to seek broad community review seems
> > like a bit of a catch 22.
> Scott,
> 
> This list has been available for some time, to discuss the dmarc spec,
> the Using draft, the draft charter and the planned BOF.
> 
> Note that your opening text here was "I've been saying repeatedly".  My
> query about community support for your concerns was based on that
> reference.
> 
> In any event, you are indicating that you have concerns over the
> specifications.  That's fine, of course, but there needs to be some
> community resonance with that concern, to justify opening up the spec
> and pursuing it.  That's merely standard IETF process.
> 
> Again:  if you want folks on this list to press for something to be
> done, please recruit folks on this list to support its being done.

It's a bit difficult to have a conversation about things that are being decided 
in private, particularly when those in the private club dismiss external 
input.  I guess I've misunderstood the IETF.  I had this crazy notion it was 
about getting the proper technical solution, not collecting votes for a 
position.

Scott K