> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of S Moonesamy > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:24 PM > To: Dave Cridland > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: DMARC: perspectives from a listadmin of large open-source lists > > Hi Dave, > At 00:42 15-04-2014, Dave Cridland wrote: > >Given the expense and difficulty of IETF participation for smaller > >organisations and individuals, it's hard for them to club together and > >stand up to the 8000lb gorillas. > > The above is an obvious problem or difficult situation that people do not > want to talk about. > My experience with regard to working groups is that it is (technically) easy to participate and does not necessarily involve any particular costs. I don't go to IETF meetings but have participated in WG sessions during IETF meetings through jabber. Not the optimal solution but it works. I think that the notion of 8000lb gorillas somewhat misrepresents the situation. Some of the active participants in the working groups I've been involved with continue their involvement even when they change employers. With that in mind, I believe that in many cases it truly is the individual and not the individual as mouthpiece for the organization. I also believe that the 8000lb gorillas have many of the same interests as smaller organizations and individuals even though there are times where interests may diverge. It's also clear to me that there is not uniformity of interests across constituencies within large organizations. It's complex. So let's talk. > Publication in the IETF Stream usually entails giving up change control. > Sometimes that does not work out well; see RFC 6109. The process is > tedious. It does not have to be like that if people make room for agreement. > In simple terms, people can discuss about X for the next three years or there > can be a short discussion and a solution within the next three months. > > The summary of the DMARC BoF is at > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/current/msg10138.html > According to that message there was agreement for the IETF to take on the > DMARC base specification. > Unfortunately, the operative word is "was". Barry dropped his submission and Murray submitted as informational, so that ship has sailed. What that means for whether a working group is spun up to work on extensions or anything else is beyond me. If DMARC base is informational I would assume that any of the extensions would be informational. I'm not sure what the implications are. Mike