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

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 4/24/2014 7:45 PM, [e-mail] wrote:
>> It's incredibly obvious that the IETF either didn't listen to, or
>> didn't act on clear messages from the operator community on this
>> topic.
>
> Well, here I sort of agree. What the IETF didn't do is react to the
> danger this posed in a timely way. Either on a technical or political
> level.


The fundamental flaw in this sort of view is that the IETF initiates 
organization efforts. Or that it acts on "messages".  It doesn't.  It 
provides an environment for workers from the community to organize open 
standards efforts.

In other words, the failure is of the industry to formulate an effort 
and bring it to the IETF.  Other than SPF, DKIM and DMARC, of course, 
which have variously been brought to the IETF.  (I'm not trying to 
re-open a debate on the details of those three, but merely to note that 
they are examples.)

Were there examples of efforts to bring work to the IETF and have it be 
rejected, that might be the IETF's 'fault'.  DMARC is the closest 
example to that and, as has been thoroughly hashed and re-hashed, it did 
not match the usual IETF model for doing work.

So sorry, but no, there have been essentially no 'clear messages from 
the operator community' and more importantly, no /efforts/ other than 
SPF, DKIM and DMARC.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net