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

John C Klensin <> Sat, 19 April 2014 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19A0A1A0035 for <>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 09:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.872
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xh-vmXsE1Vb7 for <>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 09:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037261A0020 for <>; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 09:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <>) id 1WbXgq-000FDz-BP; Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:00:28 -0400
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 12:00:23 -0400
From: John C Klensin <>
To:, Miles Fidelman <>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on; SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 16:00:35 -0000

--On Saturday, April 19, 2014 08:17 -0700 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.


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.

> And this really needs to be spearheaded by the IESG, not the
> IAB. I hope the IESG is already considering taking action. 
> If not, they should be.