> I've been saying from the start that this was a failure on the IETF's > part.
> It's just not the kind of failure you think it was.
Any suggestions on how we might approach making changes? I guess overall architecture, process, and policy are IAB's purview - but how does one get folks to pay attention - I haven't seen any IAB members commenting here, for example. (Note: My own IETF involvement has always been one step removed - mostly in my days at BBN, where I sat next to a lot of active IETF participants, but spent more of my time on system design and application of protocols. My direct standards involvement has always seemed to end up in other forums - mostly military and security stuff that ran under funny venues. These days, I'm more on the tail end of being effected by such things as this current debacle - which are kind of motivating me to get more seriously involved.)
I've been thinking about it, and I think this needs to be addressed on at least two different fronts. First, I've come to believe that the IETF needs to say something, in some capacity, about the political aspects of the DMARC situation specifically. I also think the time has come to try and address the more general problem of misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of the status of various documents. This probably needs to be addressed through a combination of automatic labeling as well as some explicit statements here and there. And this really needs to be spearheaded by the IESG, not the IAB. I hope the IESG is already considering taking action. If not, they should be. Ned