ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Enough DMARC whinging

2014-05-01 13:37:25
On 5/1/14 7:53 AM, John C Klensin wrote:


I recommend a careful reading of RFC 4846 before doing so, but,
with the understanding that there is no consensus process
involved and this list is definitely the wrong place to have, or
even copy, the discussion, if someone had well-thought-out
opinions as to whether that document should be published in the
Independent Stream and/or what completeness conditions should be
imposed on it, the ISE is typically willing to accept
unsolicited reviews.  Similarly, if someone felt like generating
a well-reasoned critique, posting it as an I-D, and asking that
the ISE consider publication, I assume such a request would at
least be considered.

I'd like to understand the relationship of RFC 4846, which is
Informational, with RFC 5792/BCP 92 here. The latter gives IESG 5
options for review of independent submissions for conflicts with the
IETF standards process, such as:

   5. The IESG has concluded that this document extends an IETF protocol
      in a way that requires IETF review and should therefore not be
      published without IETF review and IESG approval.

What is the appropriate forum to express opinions to the IESG to inform
their decision?


I am definitely not speaking for Nevil or predicting his
reactions, but I would suggest one caution: RFC 4846 and
established practice gives the ISE far more flexibility (and,
indeed, license) to ignore or discard repetition, ranting,
strongly-stated opinions that are not grounded in solid
references or generally-accepted facts, etc., than, e.g., IESG
members have in response to IETF Last Call comments.  So, if
anyone decides to go that route, I'd suggest that they do so
with as high a level of professionalism as they can manage.

I have sent my detailed review of the draft, hopefully meeting those
criteria, to Nevil.

-Jim

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