IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> Tue, 02 July 2013 02:28 UTC

Return-Path: <johnl@taugh.com>
X-Original-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D17D811E8384 for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P9zUGcDyNWVV for <dmarc@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from leila.iecc.com (leila6.iecc.com [IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:4c:6569:6c61]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0FE911E837F for <dmarc@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jul 2013 19:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 88234 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2013 02:27:58 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=158a9.51d23aae.k1307; bh=TuP/kHs0u20jaHcDlBsRT5RN2ZnxqBOgivooDzyEm3A=; b=k/XMaPZ0HBDT3/EI47Yk9h3c7QimFEP/X00VlsZhgaDrIz8Xe5evVc7YqN3kZ0MESjEoRayEjG8N8FejM6mKty7c48Mh77qiwgb5b3zEiqV77VspcwZm57V8bKY/kKLIYdr4wVQKpjMKCB4omcZ+/zydycaeU3gs14N7TcW48H0rEkQOPKhpHXfzJiW1acpSPUJpYH59IuHM3k/YxHJ568kE9kThrhzYNDenQLVlwiIEBeO6q1DNyuqI6JdNPRSR
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=taugh.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent:cleverness; s=158a9.51d23aae.k1307; bh=TuP/kHs0u20jaHcDlBsRT5RN2ZnxqBOgivooDzyEm3A=; b=qxVfU8e9HOPUmDdDxXd+HbEyMxP2sireTeQRNPIKYWrmn9CiBjlk1808oPeQ4GyY+qYRL2u8rNBsz4dqV2e28B7s2+1Qw/ReieQ1uXTWd5jSMqZdzQHBEwdiULvS7M2GtoEIf8uMUQKNbUIagKQjp3j/bXJ75+/pyzZ2rYBfs7PXQKh8WgpncrnwUoLBQMmTb80hYW1gYZBjfYB9AwJVFj3ExpaYMlNLOq8ddpwfOqzxVarFIoovb0bC0n27llm9
Received: (ofmipd 127.0.0.1); 2 Jul 2013 02:27:36 -0000
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 22:27:58 -0400
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1307012226360.15177@joyce.lan>
From: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51D23955.8030902@gmail.com>
References: <20130702013302.14968.qmail@joyce.lan> <51D23955.8030902@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
Cleverness: None detected
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: dmarc@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin
X-BeenThere: dmarc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Compliance \(DMARC\)" <dmarc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc>
List-Post: <mailto:dmarc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc>, <mailto:dmarc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 02:28:00 -0000

>> 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.

You have it backwards.  I think the individual path is just dandy for 
competent documents written elsewhere.

My point is that since dmarc.org can do this stuff, why should the IETF 
spend volunteer time on a WG?

R's,
John

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email