Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com Sat, 19 April 2014 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D701A0065 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:03:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.174
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yo3F2yzTwnkZ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com (mauve.mrochek.com [66.159.242.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D9ED1A0055 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 11:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P6TTN6I1S0003SXB@mauve.mrochek.com> for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01P6SVAPGZY800004W@mauve.mrochek.com> (original mail from NED@mauve.mrochek.com) for ietf@ietf.org; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com
Message-id: <01P6TTN1ILCQ00004W@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 10:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:00:23 -0400" <56CF13B8250F8BE24F6F10CC@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <5349AE35.2000908@meetinghouse.net> <5349BCDA.7080701@gmail.com> <01P6L9JZF5SC00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <CAL0qLwZr=wVX6eD+yGVOaxkSy5fJbuAErTshOG+2BywUvkDfAA@mail.gmail.com> <01P6QCMYYMJ000004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <6EF4DECC078B08C89F163155@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <01P6QVVGQA4W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5350A9FB.9010307@dougbarton.us> <01P6S93XQ9TI00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <5351A89D.7000700@dougbarton.us> <01P6STS0F6I600004X@mauve.mrochek.com> <5351CCBC.4070901@meetinghouse.net> <01P6TOCIJM0W00004W@mauve.mrochek.com> <56CF13B8250F8BE24F6F10CC@JcK-HP8200.jck.com>
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/69uaUfNKzDIss-0o2E0CgI97MHY
Cc: ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 18:03:07 -0000

> --On Saturday, April 19, 2014 08:17 -0700
> ned+ietf@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:

> > I've been thinking about it, and I think this needs to be
> > addressed on at least
> > two different fronts. First, I've come to believe that the
> > IETF needs to say
> > something, in  some capacity, about the political aspects of
> > the DMARC situation specifically.
> >
> > I also think the time has come to try and address the more
> > general problem
> > of misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the status of
> > various
> > documents. This probably needs to be addressed through a
> > combination of
> > automatic labeling as well as some explicit statements here
> > and there.

> Ned,

> I agree, but I also think there is another element of the
> situation that got us here, and that has led us close to other
> problems in the past.  When the RFC Editor is asked to publish a
> non-WG document (i.e., either an individual submission through
> the IETF stream or as an independent submission) that could be
> construed as some sort of standard (whether actually standards
> track or not) or approval of an IANA parameter registration is
> on the basis of expert review, there as a potential for the
> appearance of conflicts of interest.   Those conflicts need not
> be of the traditional legal or financial variety.  They can
> occur (or be perceived to occur) when someone's institutional or
> organizational relationships outside the IETF might lead people
> to suspect that review and decision-making might not be as
> careful, unbiased, or primarily reflective of the interest of
> the IETF or the broader Internet community as we would like it
> to assume it always is.  For situations where troublesome
> relationships exist or might be inferred (even by those
> suffering from mild paranoid), we need to get much more careful
> about disclosure of the relationships involved.

Good point, and I agree.

These waters are going to be difficult to nagivate, but I don't see any
alternative.

				Ned