On 4/24/2014 11:23 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/24/2014 7:45 PM, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
It's incredibly obvious that the IETF either didn't listen to, or
didn't act on clear messages from the operator community on this
topic.
Well, here I sort of agree. What the IETF didn't do is react to the
danger this posed in a timely way. Either on a technical or political
level.
The fundamental flaw in this sort of view is that the IETF initiates
organization efforts. Or that it acts on "messages". It doesn't. It
provides an environment for workers from the community to organize
open standards efforts.
In other words, the failure is of the industry to formulate an effort
and bring it to the IETF. Other than SPF, DKIM and DMARC, of course,
which have variously been brought to the IETF. (I'm not trying to
re-open a debate on the details of those three, but merely to note
that they are examples.)
....
So sorry, but no, there have been essentially no 'clear messages from
the operator community' and more importantly, no /efforts/ other than
SPF, DKIM and DMARC.
Dave, you were involved in all this. You resisted POLICY and threw
out ADSP, yet you supported DMARC without resolving any of the exact
policy concerns involving middle ware.
Your approach was to just allow the problem to continue to exist as if
it was only a small use case. You blindly and also intentionally and
neglectfully ignored everything that had to do with this issue. You
told others to also ignore these concerns. Yet, you are now promoting
DMARC which has the same exact problem. It doesn't make any sense.
No, I'm sorry to say. you can't push this issue on any one else but
yourself. You were the KEY COG in this entire DKIM+POLICY+TRUST
effort. But you didn't CHAMPION POLICY, nor did the author of ADSP
and it suffered the consequences. You can't expect high quality in
work when the author doesn't champion his own work. When others cited
interest to take it over, it was ignored as well. We can blames the
chairs and ADs of the DKIM-WG too for allowing this to happen.
All the concerns, desires, integration issues, are in the archives and
also in I-Ds and also RFCs. Instead, you had a policy of intentional
ignorance, filtering mail you just didn't wish to read. Not important
in your book. You also used INFORMATIONAL non-wg fast tracked
documents to change proposed standard track items and the course of
their WG direction, in the case of ADSP - down the tubes. You made it
historic. Perhaps millions of combine IETF-MAN-YEARS wasted down the
tubes, and for what? To get DMARC which had the same 3rd party
signature problem that you desperately need to get working in order
for the DKIM+TRUST framework to work. You don't need to explain
yourself but please don't you dare put this on others in the
community, including myself, who worked hard for the past 9+ years on
all this and yes even implemented all these protocols with "running
code" only for you to say, it doesn't matter, too small, lets get rid
of it!!
Ok, put all that past stuff away. What are you going to do NOW!? How
are you going to help lead the way? If not, you need to allow others
begin to solve the problem without all this interfering philosophical
b-llsh-t that has held back the IETF DKIM+POLICY efforts and hurt its
reputation - big time. You are a highly respected person, but you
were completely wrong with how your were pushing DKIM. You didn't
help with its original policy framework and now DMARC has forced the
issue. What are you going to do now?
--
HLS