On 4/24/2014 7:45 PM, ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
It's incredibly obvious that the IETF either didn't listen to, or
didn't act on clear messages from the operator community on this
topic.
Well, here I sort of agree. What the IETF didn't do is react to the
danger this posed in a timely way. Either on a technical or political
level.
The fundamental flaw in this sort of view is that the IETF initiates
organization efforts. Or that it acts on "messages". It doesn't. It
provides an environment for workers from the community to organize open
standards efforts.
In other words, the failure is of the industry to formulate an effort
and bring it to the IETF. Other than SPF, DKIM and DMARC, of course,
which have variously been brought to the IETF. (I'm not trying to
re-open a debate on the details of those three, but merely to note that
they are examples.)
Were there examples of efforts to bring work to the IETF and have it be
rejected, that might be the IETF's 'fault'. DMARC is the closest
example to that and, as has been thoroughly hashed and re-hashed, it did
not match the usual IETF model for doing work.
So sorry, but no, there have been essentially no 'clear messages from
the operator community' and more importantly, no /efforts/ other than
SPF, DKIM and DMARC.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net