On 2018-11-11 09:56, S Moonesamy wrote: > Hi Dave, At 10:44 AM 09-11-2018, Dave Cridland wrote: >> I suspect that had less to do with mailing lists in general, and >> much to do with the IETF mailing lists in particular. DMARC itself >> was a clear attempt to side-step the standards process, and a >> successful one at that. It's mirrored by other activities, like >> WHAT-WG. This again is an overt move by dominant providers to >> cement their control over the standards. And yes, I'm well aware >> that is not what it says on the WHAT-WG website - but it is, >> however, literally what the Steering Group is there to enforce. > > I visited the web site. From what I understand, the working group > defines the standards for the web. That shouldn't be a problem as > the IETF is currently not doing any related work. That isn't completely true, unfortunately. There was an overlap with certain aspects of RFC 6874, specifically https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6874#section-3, and with the objection to RFC 6874 raised by the designer of CUPS: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6874&eid=3632 I'm not trying to re-litigate that issue, but just want to show that SDOs such as IETF and W3C, and very ad hoc SDOs such as WHAT-WG, may in fact collide over unexpected little things. Brian > Furthermore, it is > in line with the belief of "technological freedom". > > There might have been conflicting interests in the case of DMARC. > That can happen in any venue in which various interests are at stake. > Things get out of hand when the managers of the process either do not > have adequate experience to handle the matter or if they have a > vested interest in the matter. > > Regards, S. Moonesamy > >
