Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists Mon, 21 April 2014 05:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6FC11A012E for <>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 22:07:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.174
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ht9KYtdW30gv for <>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 22:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C8931A002D for <>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 22:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> for; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 22:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Received: from by (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <> (original mail from for; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 22:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-id: <>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:47:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Sun, 20 Apr 2014 09:57:12 -0500" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Pete Resnick <>
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: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 05:07:38 -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.

On the misunderstanding/misrepresentation issue, I'm not sure asking what
could have been "done differently this time" is the right question. Our
processes were followed AFAIK. The misunderstanding/misrepresentation 
of the (preliminary) result of that process is not really a result of
what was done there, but rather the context in which the process operates.

But to my other point - what came out of the process - yes, I entirely
agree we need to look at what could have been done differently.

And on that score I'm not going to presume to offer specific advice. What I
will say is that I think you need to widen your scope to consider other
specifications. I already pointed out on the ietf-822 list how the SPFBIS
specifications contains what I consider to be totally inadequate advice on how
to address a similar, albeit less serious and far easier to address, issue. 

In fact I think some examination of how similar issues have been handled in
other recent documents is warranted.