On Monday, April 14, 2014 14:14:25 Dave Crocker wrote: > On 4/14/2014 1:54 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > > This might have been true if: > ... > > > 2. the decision making process within a closed industry consortium with > > maybe less than 20 members, representing immense commercial power, could > > be compared to the process of consensus, that's being used within IETF. > > By way of pressing a particular process issue, without commenting on any > of the surrounding issues: > > It's certainly true that the DMARC specification has not gone > through an IETF approval process. > > That said, the document has been subject to open review for quite > awhile, first (and continuing) via a mailing list at dmarc.org and more > recently also one hosted at the IETF. And the handling of reviews has > been substantive. Again, not an IETF open process, but substantive. > > Over quite a few months, there were a number of aggressive efforts > to solicit community suggestions and agreement about the engineering > work or document refinement work needed on the specification. > > Nothing close to rough consensus developed for any technical or > documentation work. Not on the dmarc.org list and not on the IETF's > dmarc list. > > If the community wanted changes to the specification, it had quite a bit > of opportunity to call for the changes and/or call for doing such work > in the IETF. Not really. As long as change control is outside the IETF and it's normal processes, outsiders to the core group can call for change and that change can be accepted or ignored be the insiders in the group with none of the normal IETF processes that resolve issues and lead to rough consensus. It's not a very attractive environment to expend ones "free" time in. I did some review of the spec, but certainly would be been more motivated to do a more thorough and complete job in the context of a WG. Scott K