On April 20, 2014 5:35:21 PM EDT, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 4/20/2014 2:30 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On April 20, 2014 2:18:08 PM EDT, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Requiring clear statements about the need is not 'defensive'; it
is merely being professional and responsible.
That's one theory. Considering the current state of play in which
DMARC isn't even being submitted to the IETF, the alternative theory
that the developers of DMARC were not interested in anything other
than a rubber stamp approval from the IETF seems to me to be much
more consistent with the available information.
I think I'm done with this argument.
Yes, it's always good to end with an attack on other people's
integrity.
So much more comforting than dealing with the substance of the issue.
Definitely better to dismiss that out of hand.
Sigh. Okay. One more.
I gave my opinion.
There's a substantial body of discussion on both public DMARC lists and the
IETF DMARC list about how we got where we are. I'm sure there were plenty of
private discussions too.
Anyone who cares can review the public portions of the record and form their
own opinion. Having a difference of opinion over how it should've been done
is not an attack on anyone's integrity.
I'm certainly not the one who (I'm paraphrasing from memory, so this may not be
exactly right) accused unnamed IETF insiders of subverting IETF processes.
That struck me as an attack on someone's integrity, but it wasn't me doing it.
You and I haven't and won't agree on this, so I don't see the point of wasting
everyone's time continuing to argue about it. To the extent that there's a
substantive issue or question at stake, I think people who care should go read
the lists' archives and reach their own conclusions.
Scott K