Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
Big red disclaimer at the top then:
- THIS IS A DRAFT DISCUSSION MEMO
- THIS IS NOT A STANDARDS-TRACK SPECIFICATION
- THIS IS AN INDEPENDENT SUBMISSION, NOT AN IETF DOCUMENT
- SHOULD NOT BE USED AS THE BASIS FOR OPERATIONAL DEPLOYMENT OF PROTOCOL
SOFTWARE
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra