On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:14:19 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Miles Fidelman > > <mfidelman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > > Then again, the current DMARC debacle presents a cautionary tale of more > > ad hoc approaches. > > DMARC's proponents tried to come to the IETF to form a working group so > that it could undergo the rigors of standards development, and thus not be > as "ad hoc" as you're describing. It was not accepted, on the basis that, > in essence, the work was already done so there's nothing for the IETF to > contribute. > > (If I've mischaracterized this, I'm happy to be corrected.) If that's true, it's my impression it's true because the DMARC proponents insisted any possible working group charter preclude meaningful changes to the base specification because the work was already done. Personally, I was kind of OK with the current plan, although I thought it far from ideal because I thought there was a clear understanding among the DMARC proponents about what kinds of domains p=reject was appropriate for (not ones with real users that commonly use use cases for which p=reject is problematic). Now that that clearly isn't the case, I think the plan needs to be revisited. Scott K