On Monday, April 14, 2014 14:14:25 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/14/2014 1:54 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
This might have been true if:
...
2. the decision making process within a closed industry consortium with
maybe less than 20 members, representing immense commercial power, could
be compared to the process of consensus, that's being used within IETF.
By way of pressing a particular process issue, without commenting on any
of the surrounding issues:
It's certainly true that the DMARC specification has not gone
through an IETF approval process.
That said, the document has been subject to open review for quite
awhile, first (and continuing) via a mailing list at dmarc.org and more
recently also one hosted at the IETF. And the handling of reviews has
been substantive. Again, not an IETF open process, but substantive.
Over quite a few months, there were a number of aggressive efforts
to solicit community suggestions and agreement about the engineering
work or document refinement work needed on the specification.
Nothing close to rough consensus developed for any technical or
documentation work. Not on the dmarc.org list and not on the IETF's
dmarc list.
If the community wanted changes to the specification, it had quite a bit
of opportunity to call for the changes and/or call for doing such work
in the IETF.
Not really. As long as change control is outside the IETF and it's normal
processes, outsiders to the core group can call for change and that change can
be accepted or ignored be the insiders in the group with none of the normal
IETF processes that resolve issues and lead to rough consensus.
It's not a very attractive environment to expend ones "free" time in. I did
some review of the spec, but certainly would be been more motivated to do a
more thorough and complete job in the context of a WG.
Scott K