--On Thursday, July 17, 2014 07:39 -0700 Dave Crocker
<dhc@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
I have been asked to not go there and am complying.
>> 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?
Perhaps it would have been more precise to say "delete all
DMARC-related headers", i.e., DKIM and/or SPF ones. While that
would be pretty drastic in some respects, whether it is
justifiable depends on perceptions of the damage that DMARC can
cause. I think that is a topic for WG discussion.
See my response to John Levine.
john