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

[[e-mail]]

> --On Saturday, April 19, 2014 08:17 -0700
> [e-mail] 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