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

Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net> Sun, 13 April 2014 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
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 6DE771A0242 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:22:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.018
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 D5zq6wERGZB7 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:22:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net (server1.neighborhoods.net [207.154.13.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCE51A02D2 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 13:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF64CC09F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.2 (20081215) (Debian) at neighborhoods.net
Received: from server1.neighborhoods.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (server1.neighborhoods.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id VMGy8e4Qy7nQ for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:22:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from new-host.home (pool-173-76-155-14.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [173.76.155.14]) by server1.neighborhoods.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D3E69CC09C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:21:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <534AF1E7.4070800@meetinghouse.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 16:21:59 -0400
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 SeaMonkey/2.25
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <5349A261.9040500@dcrocker.net> <CAA=duU0tNVpdRrjwHX6D5arnNenzOztvpfoPgPLwo2aauMASQg@mail.gmail.com> <534AE3B1.50606@meetinghouse.net> <534AEC1A.3060502@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <534AEC1A.3060502@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/C1YBT4KEvqY6XoBoSLZwRFY-31o
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: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 20:22:10 -0000

Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Miles,
>
> On 14/04/2014 07:21, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Andrew G. Malis wrote:
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>> I couldn't help seeing in your email:
>>>
>>>      The DMARC specification is not 'an IETF document'.  The current
>>>      plan is to publish it as an RFC, through the 'Independent' stream,
>>>      which also is /not/ an IETF activity.
>>>
>>>
>>> when compared to the following at dmarc.org <http://dmarc.org> (on the
>>> front page):
>>>
>>> "DMARC policies are published in the public Domain Name System (DNS),
>>> and available to everyone. It is the goal of DMARC.org to submit the
>>> draft specification to the IETF so that it may begin the process of
>>> becoming an official Internet Standard RFC - available to everyone for
>>> reference, implementation, and improvement."
>>>
>>> The statement on dmarc.org <http://dmarc.org> really does look like a
>>> misrepresentation.
>>>
>> Exactly.  And IETF is complicit by providing the publication vehicle and
>> not loudly denying that it's an IETF standards-track protocol, with all
>> the associated careful vetting, testing, and maturation over time.
>> (There's a reason that folks like Xerox and Kleenex very actively
>> protect their brand.)
> Hold on though. At the moment the text says, among other things,
>
>     Note that other groups may also distribute
>     working documents as Internet-Drafts.  ...
>
>     Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
>     and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
>     time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
>     material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
>
>     This Internet-Draft will expire on October 4, 2014.
>
> If published in the Independent Stream as an RFC, it will say
>
>     This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is
>     published for informational purposes.
>
>     This is a contribution to the RFC Series, independently of any
>     other RFC stream.  The RFC Editor has chosen to publish this
>     document at its discretion and makes no statement about its value
>     for implementation or deployment.  Documents approved for
>     publication by the RFC Editor are not a candidate for any level of
>     Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741.
>
> and might also carry an explicit statement from the IESG along the
> YMMV axis.
>
> We know this doesn't prevent marketing people from telling lies
> about the status of a document, but the IETF doesn't do so.
>
>      Brian

Just pointing out that when marketing people tell lies, pointing to the 
fine print may not be a sufficient response (morally, or legally).

Miles

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra