Re: DMARC from the perspective of the listadmin of a bunch of SMALL community lists

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 4/19/14 10:17 AM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
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.

The timing has been impeccable. The IESG had been privately talking about the "IETF relevance" issue, including why people are bringing "done" work to the IETF instead of working inside of the IETF. And related to "done" work, we have also been discussing the relative merits of AD-sponsored documents vs. ISE documents and what the appropriate use of IESG and IETF time is for these things. We've had all of that on our agenda for our upcoming retreat in a couple of weeks, and planned to discuss it with the IAB during a joint meeting. Then this DMARC thing happens, and Vidya published her article on "why I quit writing internet standards". It could not have been timed better.

I'm trying to get my head around what we should have done differently on this, both tactically and strategically, so that I can summarize it for the discussion. But I can say pretty confidently that this is a topic frontmost in the minds of IESG folks.

pr

--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]