On 7/17/2014 7:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > but the IETF has, at > least IMO, tended to avoid protocols that favor large providers > but hurt small ones While that certainly sounds appealing, I'm not aware of any IETF policy or pattern of practice in that regard. Please supply some documentation for it. > To me, that makes decisions about damage-mitigation work for a > non-essential protocol complicated because one way to eliminate > the damage is to not support the protocol at all, possibly > including stripping its headers whenever they are encountered. What 'headers' are you referring to? > I don't want to try to do the WG's work at charter discussion ... > ignoring) DMARC headers whenever they are encountered". DMARC does not (currently) have any 'headers'. > I just want to be sure it is at least treated > as a legitimate alternative and that, should someone complain on > IETF Last Call that it wasn't considered seriously and/or that > the reasons for not going in that direction are not adequately > documented, such complaints cannot be dismissed on the basis of > language in the charter. Please suggest charter text. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net