On 14 April 2014 19:03, Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The later, accompanied with a strong statement about the limits of DMARC, and the flaws in its deployment - might not be a bad start.
A more pragmatic, less expensive, and publicly visible _expression_ of IETF displeasure might be to expunge all versions of the offending I-D from IETF document store and refuse to publish any subsequent version until the unwarranted claims made for it are retracted.
To be effective, that needs to be done now, while the iron is still hot; not after the usual 3-month email debate about the diplomatic niceties.
What real-world effect is this supposed to have, apart from setting a very dangerous precedent?
1) Invalidates the inappropriate document citations on DMARC site.
2) Publicly refutes any claim that this is an IETF standardisation effort.
Robust action in defence of IETF reputation is possibly a precedent worth setting.