On April 15, 2014 12:25:40 PM EDT, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 4/14/2014 8:35 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:26:44 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
I mentioned in another thread that the DMARC people did come to the
IETF to
ask for a working group to complete development of the work on the
standards track. This request was denied on the grounds that DMARC
was
essentially already done, and thus the IETF had nothing
engineering-wise to
contribute. There were also too few people that were not already
DMARC
proponents that would commit to working on it.
(And as I said on that other thread, I'm happy to stand corrected if
I've
mischaracterized any of that.)
My perception (and it may also be wrong) is that anyone who claimed
there was
work yet to be done was shouted down.
Given that the exchanges were on an open mailing list, I'm not quite
sure what that means.
What I am sure of is that I've pressed quite vigorously and repeatedly,
first on the open dmarc.org mailing list and then on the IETF DMARC
mailing list, for folk to cite work that needed to be done and to
develop group support for that work.
What I saw was some individuals suggesting some bits of work, but no
support developed around it. (By 'support' I mean more than a few
folk.)
Perhaps you can point to specific examples of this 'shouting down'
happening?
What I also saw was some folk insisting that the charter be vague and
unconstrained, with no concern for the installed base.
As I said in the other thread, I think the only reason it was
perceived as
done is that the private group that developed the spec declared it
done and
fought against any WG charter language that would have permitted
changes to
the core protocol. Based on that approach, no wonder it was
declined.
Changes to the core of a protocol is the essence of de-stabilizing its
installed base.
Writing a charter that permits de-stabilizing a substantial installed
base only makes sense when there is a clear and compelling basis
already
known for needing to make such changes.
With respect to DMARC, none has been offered or has developed community
support.
Writing a charter that permits de-stablilizing an installed base
covering 60% of the world's email traffic, in the absence of a clear
and
compelling understanding of the need would be irresponsible.
Arguably, the mere existence of such a charter would be de-stabilizing,
since it means that anyone considering adoption has an excuse to defer
it to the indefinite future, when the IETF might get around to
releasing
a revision.
Considering we're just in the finishing stages of spfbis, which you
participated in significantly, and none of those fears were realized despite a
charter that permitted incompatible changes if really needed I have a hard time
understanding how you would believe all that to be true.
I think we entirely agree on the facts. I fully concur you have been loud and
vigorous.
I also think it's not at all surprising given the volume and vigor coming from
the DMARC developers that not that many people jumped up and lept into the fray.
Scott K