On 7/17/2014 7:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
but the IETF has, at
least IMO, tended to avoid protocols that favor large providers
but hurt small ones
While that certainly sounds appealing, I'm not aware of any IETF policy
or pattern of practice in that regard.
Please supply some documentation for it.
To me, that makes decisions about damage-mitigation work for a
non-essential protocol complicated because one way to eliminate
the damage is to not support the protocol at all, possibly
including stripping its headers whenever they are encountered.
What 'headers' are you referring to?
I don't want to try to do the WG's work at charter discussion
...
ignoring) DMARC headers whenever they are encountered".
DMARC does not (currently) have any 'headers'.
I just want to be sure it is at least treated
as a legitimate alternative and that, should someone complain on
IETF Last Call that it wasn't considered seriously and/or that
the reasons for not going in that direction are not adequately
documented, such complaints cannot be dismissed on the basis of
language in the charter.
Please suggest charter text.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net