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

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 03:56 UTC

Return-Path: <scott@kitterman.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 5A1BD1A0770 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 akbw-LRP9B8f for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AD471A076D for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:56:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B6995612D; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:56:34 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1397534194; bh=nZAEXg4fjouwTypy/ZJ9cJlBi4N8MbYlPtEUJv24j/U=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=j7E8hLf+5azJm7BFufIPq365pLNG/f2H4aagY3fcPKYY8o5Jk3hSH3ooe5VNSHuZU HWDL/OWsQ3roLWttDOF13QrDfd31iC28I8oMGFobJLTNMqC2PY+003EeCT9R+LwL4S PgD1J+0En/h1oJaUfsygj83xsHCXJ7azlImcp9fA=
Received: from scott-latitude-e6320.localnet (static-72-81-252-21.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [72.81.252.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12284D041A0; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:56:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:56:23 -0400
Message-ID: <5593510.KZqL8eSkZ2@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.11.0-19-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <534C4FB1.9060508@bbiw.net>
References: <53499A5E.9020805@meetinghouse.net> <534C4AF8.60709@sonnection.nl> <534C4FB1.9060508@bbiw.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SLF0Fru0Oh_exjN5_UWDHh9utx4
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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 03:56:49 -0000

On Monday, April 14, 2014 14:14:25 Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 4/14/2014 1:54 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
> > This might have been true if:
> ...
> 
> > 2. the decision making process within a closed industry consortium with
> > maybe less than 20 members, representing immense commercial power, could
> > be compared to the process of consensus, that's being used within IETF.
> 
> By way of pressing a particular process issue, without commenting on any
> of the surrounding issues:
> 
>     It's certainly true that the DMARC specification has not gone
> through an IETF approval process.
> 
>     That said, the document has been subject to open review for quite
> awhile, first (and continuing) via a mailing list at dmarc.org and more
> recently also one hosted at the IETF.  And the handling of reviews has
> been substantive.  Again, not an IETF open process, but substantive.
> 
>     Over quite a few months, there were a number of aggressive efforts
> to solicit community suggestions and agreement about the engineering
> work or document refinement work needed on the specification.
> 
>     Nothing close to rough consensus developed for any technical or
> documentation work.  Not on the dmarc.org list and not on the IETF's
> dmarc list.
> 
> If the community wanted changes to the specification, it had quite a bit
> of opportunity to call for the changes and/or call for  doing such work
> in the IETF.

Not really.  As long as change control is outside the IETF and it's normal 
processes, outsiders to the core group can call for change and that change can 
be accepted or ignored be the insiders in the group with none of the normal 
IETF processes that resolve issues and lead to rough consensus.

It's not a very attractive environment to expend ones "free" time in.  I did 
some review of the spec, but certainly would be been more motivated to do a 
more thorough and complete job in the context of a WG.

Scott K