On May 30, 2014 3:37:28 AM EDT, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> >wrote: > >> The reason there is no IETF working group is that the people behind >DMARC >> were >> unwilling to entertain participation in a working group that had a >charter >> that allowed for any chance of a change to the DMARC protocol. >> > >I think that's a bit hyperbolic. There was perhaps too much emphasis >on >protecting the deployed base, but had they been confronted with actual >data >about something that wouldn't work (rather than the typical theory-only >assertions on which working groups like to rathole), there would have >been >ample justification for a change. > > >> DMARC change is even more off the table than MLM software change >(which >> does, >> as you suggest, evolve over time). >> > >Are there changes people want to make? So far all I've seen is >"something >needs to change", but nothing concrete, or at least nothing that has >garnered consensus of some sort. > > >> I wrote the other day asking what IETF work is there around DMARC and >> didn't >> get much of an answer. I think that's instructive. > > >I think that conclusion is premature.
At this point, I could probably craft a reasonable problem statement. I don't know what the solution is, but the solution space is certainly different if DMARC changes to deal with the current mess are on the table. Currently such changes aren't up for consideration, so no one is expending much mental energy in that direction. It's not even an IETF specification. Change the potential solution space and you'll change the discussion. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
