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

Pete Resnick <> Sun, 20 April 2014 14:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82E3D1A018F for <>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.573
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.573 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1wzbNr6AShR8 for <>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854251A0004 for <>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:57:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1398005838; x=1429541838; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xf7P7I5ao+dTSCAQZB5ZinNJZ2LbE7BJu752E3IjTnQ=; b=TQlqEIeisHikLSfi4R8pzFSOTyyuR9Ur5EsKPD1rMXcgUaxBWgebGUIX nsuqYssPOtcARJNa2qTzE2DciwE8+MpnnaVSBKZqGccD/CqDOen1mUFG8 5oRkloqpyme/FPcnSBUL7scov9t60oisBDX1KdYUPX5vH+bTJHZYBEbkT s=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,7413"; a="29924520"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 20 Apr 2014 07:57:18 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,892,1389772800"; d="scan'208";a="651940867"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 20 Apr 2014 07:57:17 -0700
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:57:17 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:57:12 -0500
From: Pete Resnick <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <>
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: []
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: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:57:28 -0000

On 4/19/14 10:17 AM, wrote:
> 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.
> 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.

The timing has been impeccable. The IESG had been privately talking 
about the "IETF relevance" issue, including why people are bringing 
"done" work to the IETF instead of working inside of the IETF. And 
related to "done" work, we have also been discussing the relative merits 
of AD-sponsored documents vs. ISE documents and what the appropriate use 
of IESG and IETF time is for these things. We've had all of that on our 
agenda for our upcoming retreat in a couple of weeks, and planned to 
discuss it with the IAB during a joint meeting. Then this DMARC thing 
happens, and Vidya published her article on "why I quit writing internet 
standards". It could not have been timed better.

I'm trying to get my head around what we should have done differently on 
this, both tactically and strategically, so that I can summarize it for 
the discussion. But I can say pretty confidently that this is a topic 
frontmost in the minds of IESG folks.


Pete Resnick<>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478