On April 15, 2014 12:25:40 PM EDT, Dave Crocker <dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On 4/14/2014 8:35 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On Monday, April 14, 2014 10:26:44 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >>> I mentioned in another thread that the DMARC people did come to the >IETF to >>> ask for a working group to complete development of the work on the >>> standards track. This request was denied on the grounds that DMARC >was >>> essentially already done, and thus the IETF had nothing >engineering-wise to >>> contribute. There were also too few people that were not already >DMARC >>> proponents that would commit to working on it. >>> >>> (And as I said on that other thread, I'm happy to stand corrected if >I've >>> mischaracterized any of that.) >> >> My perception (and it may also be wrong) is that anyone who claimed >there was >> work yet to be done was shouted down. > >Given that the exchanges were on an open mailing list, I'm not quite >sure what that means. > >What I am sure of is that I've pressed quite vigorously and repeatedly, > >first on the open dmarc.org mailing list and then on the IETF DMARC >mailing list, for folk to cite work that needed to be done and to >develop group support for that work. > >What I saw was some individuals suggesting some bits of work, but no >support developed around it. (By 'support' I mean more than a few >folk.) > >Perhaps you can point to specific examples of this 'shouting down' >happening? > >What I also saw was some folk insisting that the charter be vague and >unconstrained, with no concern for the installed base. > > >> As I said in the other thread, I think the only reason it was >perceived as >> done is that the private group that developed the spec declared it >done and >> fought against any WG charter language that would have permitted >changes to >> the core protocol. Based on that approach, no wonder it was >declined. > >Changes to the core of a protocol is the essence of de-stabilizing its >installed base. > >Writing a charter that permits de-stabilizing a substantial installed >base only makes sense when there is a clear and compelling basis >already >known for needing to make such changes. > >With respect to DMARC, none has been offered or has developed community > >support. > >Writing a charter that permits de-stablilizing an installed base >covering 60% of the world's email traffic, in the absence of a clear >and >compelling understanding of the need would be irresponsible. > >Arguably, the mere existence of such a charter would be de-stabilizing, > >since it means that anyone considering adoption has an excuse to defer >it to the indefinite future, when the IETF might get around to >releasing >a revision. > Considering we're just in the finishing stages of spfbis, which you participated in significantly, and none of those fears were realized despite a charter that permitted incompatible changes if really needed I have a hard time understanding how you would believe all that to be true. I think we entirely agree on the facts. I fully concur you have been loud and vigorous. I also think it's not at all surprising given the volume and vigor coming from the DMARC developers that not that many people jumped up and lept into the fray. Scott K