Subject: Re: Jabber [Was: Plenary questions]

From: S Moonesamy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 12:56:23 -0800

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.  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

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 11:55:48 +1300

On 2018-11-11 09:56, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Dave, At 10:44 AM 09-11-2018, Dave Cridland wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 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
> 
>

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2018 06:45:22 +0100

> may in fact collide over unexpected little things.

Yes indeed. URIs, for instance.

Best regards, Julian