On 14 April 2014 19:03, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Miles Fidelman <
mfidelman(_at_)meetinghouse(_dot_)net> wrote:
A more pragmatic, less expensive, and publicly visible expression of
IETF displeasure might be to expunge all versions of the offending I-D from
IETF document store and refuse to publish any subsequent version until the
unwarranted claims made for it are retracted.
To be effective, that needs to be done now, while the iron is still hot;
not after the usual 3-month email debate about the diplomatic niceties.
The later, accompanied with a strong statement about the limits of
DMARC, and the flaws in its deployment - might not be a bad start.
What real-world effect is this supposed to have, apart from setting a very
dangerous precedent?
1) Invalidates the inappropriate document citations on DMARC site.
2) Publicly refutes any claim that this is an IETF standardisation effort.
Robust action in defence of IETF reputation is possibly a precedent worth
setting.