Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Tue, 15 April 2014 03:28 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 ED3C31A031A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.402
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, 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 Oe6sHiqCbpmU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D667D1A02F6 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:28:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEECFD04394; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:28:22 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1397532502; bh=WcHnNVR6vkCX23vUxwR06e4BaWFElZ0Z9JfhDpviR0s=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=oS6D12jG7im3ZzjX5q+OZpjaxmzSCw2FEw+6ou1UeLTeecLimckV7jq9rBqFWuiqn jFIyrmX+ikU9+4mT+pWaofo62jPKW/MmqxENAgfd7ZtESZQRsHgeZxTXgw609iB/AJ v0p1JuASRHtBTL7sBtu2Dx5bnGWni4lyYBOE/7r0=
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 885DDD04101; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:28:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:28:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4756885.Eo3b3po9Vj@scott-latitude-e6320>
User-Agent: KMail/4.11.5 (Linux/3.11.0-19-generic; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CAL0qLwa5CRwxn0V=7D84KFv9K_u5W5L+PPUXc3KPkD0YHkNo1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com> <534C067D.8080506@meetinghouse.net> <CAL0qLwa5CRwxn0V=7D84KFv9K_u5W5L+PPUXc3KPkD0YHkNo1w@mail.gmail.com>
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/phHD2k-0NfZMSsKP3q9QBQYtyt4
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 03:28:27 -0000

On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:14:19 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Miles Fidelman
> 
> <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>wrote;wrote:
> > Then again, the current DMARC debacle presents a cautionary tale of more
> > ad hoc approaches.
> 
> DMARC's proponents tried to come to the IETF to form a working group so
> that it could undergo the rigors of standards development, and thus not be
> as "ad hoc" as you're describing.  It was not accepted, on the basis that,
> in essence, the work was already done so there's nothing for the IETF to
> contribute.
> 
> (If I've mischaracterized this, I'm happy to be corrected.)

If that's true, it's my impression it's true because the DMARC proponents 
insisted any possible working group charter preclude meaningful changes to the 
base specification because the work was already done.

Personally, I was kind of OK with the current plan, although I thought it far 
from ideal because I thought there was a clear understanding among the DMARC 
proponents about what kinds of domains p=reject was appropriate for (not ones 
with real users that commonly use use cases for which p=reject is 
problematic).

Now that that clearly isn't the case, I think the plan needs to be revisited.

Scott K