On 12/6/20 7:23 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 12/6/2020 7:13 AM, Dotzero wrote:
The group advancing DMARC was looking to preserve the installed base
for a defined period of time
Work that comes to the IETF often has a significant history before
that, often including a well-developed specification and significant
installed base.
It is not uncommon to publish that pre-IETF specification as an RFC,
to establish the formal background for the prior work. That's what was
done for DMARC.
The political -- and, IMO, technical -- issues at the time merely
served to delay seeking standards track for a revised specification,
which is what is now being pursued. While this amount of delay is
unusual, the sequence is not.
7 years and counting, 9 years from inception, 12 years from ADSP, and 16
years from SSP certainly speaks volumes as to why people would prefer to
avoid sclerotic ietf process. At best, ietf is a discovery mechanism for
interesting emerging network protocols, not an arbiter of when they are
actually usable.
Mike
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
