On 15/04/2014 08:24, Dick Franks wrote: > 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: >> >> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> The later, accompanied with a strong statement about the limits of >>> DMARC, and the flaws in its deployment - might not be a bad start. >>> >> 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. Not at the price of looking like censorship and distorting the historical record. We have very carefully designed boilerplate, and the point of boilerplate is precisely that it's there even if people don't read it. We're an open voluntary standards organisation; we're still not the Internet Police. I'm strongly against removing drafts from the public record unless they are obscene or libellous. Brian