> I've been saying from the start that this was a failure on the IETF's
> part.
> It's just not the kind of failure you think it was.
Any suggestions on how we might approach making changes? I guess
overall architecture, process, and policy are IAB's purview - but how
does one get folks to pay attention - I haven't seen any IAB members
commenting here, for example. (Note: My own IETF involvement has always
been one step removed - mostly in my days at BBN, where I sat next to a
lot of active IETF participants, but spent more of my time on system
design and application of protocols. My direct standards involvement
has always seemed to end up in other forums - mostly military and
security stuff that ran under funny venues. These days, I'm more on the
tail end of being effected by such things as this current debacle -
which are kind of motivating me to get more seriously involved.)
I've been thinking about it, and I think this needs to be addressed on at least
two different fronts. First, I've come to believe that the IETF needs to say
something, in some capacity, about the political aspects of the DMARC
situation specifically.
I also think the time has come to try and address the more general problem
of misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the status of various
documents. This probably needs to be addressed through a combination of
automatic labeling as well as some explicit statements here and there.
And this really needs to be spearheaded by the IESG, not the IAB. I hope the
IESG is already considering taking action. If not, they should be.
Ned