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

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Dave Crocker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 4/12/2014 12:56 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>
>> - DMARC.org defines the "DMARC Base Specification" with a link to
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/ - an IETF
>> document
>
>
> While the Internet-Draft mechanism is operated by the IETF, it is an open
> mechanism and issuance through it carries no automatic status, particularly
> with respect to the IETF.

It seems that folk often miss this particular point (see the recent
drama about draft-loreto-httpbis-trusted-proxy20). Pointing at the
boilerplate, explaining the fact that anyone (with an Internet
connection and an XML editor) can submit an ID, etc doesn't seem to
work. I considered pointing at, well, anything by Terrell, but instead
decided to publish a draft :-P

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wkumari-not-a-draft-00

Comments welcome.
W


>
> 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.
>
>
>
>> - the referenced document is an informational  Internet draft, that
>
>
> Drafts do not have status.  So the qualifier 'informational' here is not
> meaningful.
>
>
>
>> In essence, DMARC is being represented as a mature, standards-track IETF
>> specification - with the implication that it's been widely vetted, and
>> is marching through the traditional experimental -> optional ->
>> recommended -> mandatory steps that IETF standards go through.
>>
>> In reality:
>> - DMARC was developed by a tiny number of people, all of whom work for
>> very large ISPs
>
>
> Well, a few of us who participated don't...
>
>
>
>> - as far as I can tell, all input from the broader community - notably
>> mailing list developers and operators was roundly ignored or dismissed
>> (the transcript is really clear on this)
>
>
> What transcript?  I'm not aware of its being 'ignored or dismissed'.
>
>
>
>> - while DMARC is at least partially tested, deploying and honoring
>> "p=reject" messages is brand new, and has wreaked tremendous damage
>> across the net
>
>
> It's not new at all, though of course Yahoo's use is distinctive.
>
>
>
>> - as far as I can tell, those who are behind DMARC are taking the
>> position "it's not our problem" (see discussions on
>> [e-mail] and [e-mail]) - and there is nary a Yahoo
>> representative to be seen anywhere
>
>
> I've no idea what specifics you are referring to.
>
>
>
>> The situation strikes me as incredibly perverse and broken - the more so
>> that the perpetrators are presenting this as blessed by the IETF
>> standards process.
>
>
> I haven't seen anyone present such a claim of blessing.  Please point to the
> specifics.
>
> I fear you are confusing the difference between a desire for standards
> status with a claim of its having been granted.
>
>  d/
>
> --
> Dave Crocker
> Brandenburg InternetWorking
> bbiw.net
>