Re: "why I quit writing internet standards"

Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com> Sun, 20 April 2014 21:30 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 CE7711A003B for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WBaVfvvAb2hd for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (mailout03.controlledmail.com [208.43.65.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75D71A0039 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:30:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailout03.controlledmail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout03.controlledmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA64AD0445A; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:30:41 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=2014-01; t=1398029441; bh=PoVbycJ2AP9ctueuJD3Iy2KUk4ccofM3Tfplr/9qhWg=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:From; b=d6DYQOuZPFJsUgrje7DTWd3+8ol3HZj5/ZyQaKDb1F+LVf2RyiXl/vRfaKMfQK+/v wr0Wm4eNFQrIfbE72Pjt3PAofjJsJyWUYdcpUdIvj9Qi4mpoGj5/QPhA11upEVdvjf arHs6l6IzNRjGJzKVTFDcFRMwYa5PvW6G1U/k7P8=
Received: from [192.168.111.116] (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 6B3F9D04102; Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:30:41 -0400 (EDT)
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <53540F60.7080909@dcrocker.net>
References: <CF71721A.180A9%wesley.george@twcable.com> <4756885.Eo3b3po9Vj@scott-latitude-e6320> <5353FEF7.2060708@bbiw.net> <2438778.l2fkdhtpfX@scott-latitude-e6320> <53540F60.7080909@dcrocker.net>
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 <scott@kitterman.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:30:39 -0400
To: ietf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <2f32f665-ce89-44eb-bce1-fd95a4d8fc5f@email.android.com>
X-AV-Checked: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/tC32i-fXZz1MV_6HVQYY_1Im3MU
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: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 21:30:51 -0000

On April 20, 2014 2:18:08 PM EDT, Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>On 4/20/2014 10:15 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Right.  The alternate defense against a WG charter that allowed for
>anything
>> more than wordsmithing was to insist that proponents of a working
>group go do
>> the work of a working group to evaluate the protocol and figure out
>if it
>> needed any changes before such a working group would be chartered.
>
>
>Defense is an interest choice of words.  It tends to imply an
>obligation 
>to start a working group even when there is no work known to be needed.
>
>Working groups are expensive.  The costs they incur are justified only 
>when there is known to be a need.
>
>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. 

Scott K