Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Scott Kitterman <> Sun, 20 April 2014 22:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11EF61A0066 for <>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TlDsVFqaEkzr for <>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0d0:3001:aa::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC9241A0062 for <>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95ECCD04580; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 18:12:43 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=2014-01; t=1398031963; bh=81MZ9P2Dh/qdbUZdFo1a+VAjQY1dNKEtBUq9alk+E5Q=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:From; b=ZGmoU0YtK+wjVJ8UvkmL+nPFACw/caIy3EEPR7MyaNl+5w1JOTaeLNK7V2ua/nYbG QchwL3KSjkI/aZ6DnpP9GuXexSlKiwjPGYb6cVILQJ+bnuOc6HLIzI8NaY29hMfpe0 FSqrTqtn7Y/DWOosGaUZRYIKSngf1FfDhiPQA5F0=
Received: from [] ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ECC6D04152; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 18:12:43 -0400 (EDT)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <4756885.Eo3b3po9Vj@scott-latitude-e6320> <> <2438778.l2fkdhtpfX@scott-latitude-e6320> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"
From: Scott Kitterman <>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 18:12:41 -0400
Message-ID: <>
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
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 22:12:54 -0000

On April 20, 2014 5:35:21 PM EDT, Dave Crocker <> wrote:
>On 4/20/2014 2:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> On April 20, 2014 2:18:08 PM EDT, Dave Crocker <>
>> wrote:
>>> Requiring clear statements about the need is not 'defensive'; it
>>> is merely being professional and responsible.
>> That's one theory. Considering the current state of play in which
>> DMARC isn't even being submitted to the IETF, the alternative theory
>> that the developers of DMARC were not interested in anything other
>> than a rubber stamp approval from the IETF seems to me to be much
>> more consistent with the available information.
>> I think I'm done with this argument.
>Yes, it's always good to end with an attack on other people's
>So much more comforting than dealing with the substance of the issue.
>Definitely better to dismiss that out of hand.

Sigh.  Okay. One more.

I gave my opinion.   

There's a substantial body of discussion on both public DMARC lists and the IETF DMARC list about how we got where we are. I'm sure there were plenty of private discussions too.

Anyone who cares can review the public portions of the record and form their own opinion.   Having a difference of opinion over how it should've been done is not an attack on anyone's integrity. 

I'm certainly not the one who (I'm paraphrasing from memory, so this may not be exactly right) accused unnamed IETF insiders of subverting IETF processes.  That struck me as an attack on someone's integrity, but it wasn't me doing it.

You and I haven't and won't agree on this, so I don't see the point of wasting everyone's time continuing to argue about it. To the extent that there's a substantive issue or question at stake, I think people who care should go read the lists' archives and reach their own conclusions. 

Scott K