ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists

2014-04-15 15:30:50


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:24 PM
To: Dave Cridland
Cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists

Hi Dave,
At 00:42 15-04-2014, Dave Cridland wrote:
Given the expense and difficulty of IETF participation for smaller
organisations and individuals, it's hard for them to club together and
stand up to the 8000lb gorillas.

The above is an obvious problem or difficult situation that people do not
want to talk about.


My experience with regard to working groups is that it is (technically) easy to 
participate and does not necessarily involve any particular costs. I don't go 
to IETF meetings but have participated in WG sessions during IETF meetings 
through jabber. Not the optimal solution but it works. I think that the notion 
of 8000lb gorillas somewhat misrepresents the situation. Some of the active 
participants in the working groups I've been involved with continue their 
involvement even when they change employers. With that in mind, I believe that 
in many cases it truly is the individual and not the individual as mouthpiece 
for the organization. I also believe that the 8000lb gorillas have many of the 
same interests as smaller organizations and individuals even though there are 
times where interests may diverge. It's also clear to me that there is not 
uniformity of interests across constituencies within large organizations. It's 
complex. So let's talk. 

Publication in the IETF Stream usually entails giving up change control.
Sometimes that does not work out well; see RFC 6109.  The process is
tedious.  It does not have to be like that if people make room for agreement.
In simple terms, people can discuss about X for the next three years or there
can be a short discussion and a solution within the next three months.

The summary of the DMARC BoF is at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg10138.html
According to that message there was agreement for the IETF to take on the
DMARC base specification.


Unfortunately, the operative word is "was". Barry dropped his submission and 
Murray submitted as informational, so that ship has sailed. What that means for 
whether a working group is spun up to work on extensions or anything else is 
beyond me. If DMARC base is informational I would assume that any of the 
extensions would be informational. I'm not sure what the implications are.

Mike


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>