In
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BECDD(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
MARID specific comment:
What happened here doesn't seem to be a failure, but rather was a
success in the following sense: There was not sufficient maturity in the
proposals for a rough consensus to be reached that the proposals were
adequate to meet the bare minimum of goals that they needed to meet.
I disagree. SenderID/SPF is currently in deployment and is working just
fine in production. Maturity was not the problem.
SPF-classic is currently widely deployed. SenderID, and the new
SPF-classic, however, are not deployed. What little information about
the performance of SenderID indicates that it is probably not as
reliable as old SPF-classic.
Maturity certainly was a problem.
I think that there was a mismatch of expectations between people who
thought that the purpose of the group was to agree on a refinement of
an existing specification that had already achieved a very large degree
of industry buy in and those who thought that it was an open forum to
propose their alternative idea.
I have never been in a standards group of the second type that has
succeeded. In every case that a group has suceeded the starting point
has been a specification that was already largely complete.
That is exactly what MARID did. We tried to create SenderID. Things
only moved forward in fits and starts when SenderID moved closer to
SPF-classic.
-wayne