Subject: RE: Status of MARID WG?

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:45:12 -0800

The practical difference is not that important.

There are many RFCs that have reached draft standard status that have never
been deployed. There are many protocols that have never progressed beyond
experimental or informational that are real defacto standards.

It was abundantly clear than many in the group were working from a mental
model that went something like obtain IETF standards status, get deployed.
This is in practice only the way forward after a protocol is reasonably
mature. There is a high probability that the blogosphere will converge on
whatever ATOM decides, but the IETF could not have created the blogosphere
by simply ratifying an RFC.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas Gal
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:21 PM
> To: 'Harry Katz'; 'Dean Anderson'
> Cc: 'IETF MARID WG'
> Subject: RE: Status of MARID WG?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess technically since the drafts have the writers' names 
> rather than then working group name they are not implied to 
> be ietf WG documents. 
> 
> 
> -Tom
> 
> [email-masked]  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [email-masked]
> > [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Harry Katz
> > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 8:49 AM
> > To: Dean Anderson
> > Cc: IETF MARID WG
> > Subject: RE: Status of MARID WG?
> > 
> > 
> > To my knowledge, MARID has not started again.
> > 
> > I was just using the list to provide members with copies of
> > the specifications since they will not appear on the IETF web 
> > site until after the IETF 61 meeting. 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dean Anderson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 7:31 PM
> > > To: Harry Katz
> > > Cc: IETF MARID WG
> > > Subject: Status of MARID WG?
> > > 
> > > Unless I missed something, the MARID working group is
> > shutdown, so it
> > > can no longer consider drafts. It was my understanding that
> > this list
> > > was kept active for discussion only.  Did the MARID WG
> > start up again?
> > > 
> > > 		--Dean
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Harry Katz wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The attached Sender ID specification,
> > > draft-lyon-senderid-pra-00, is
> > > > being submitted to the IETF as an experimental Internet
> > draft along
> > > > with draft-lyon-senderid-core-00 and draft-katz-submitter-00.
> > > > 
> > > > These three drafts capture discussions held during the last
> > > few weeks
> > > > of the MARID working group, as well as some subsequent
> > > feedback we've
> > > > received. In summary, we've made two key changes to the 
> Sender ID
> > > > Framework:
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> > > www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
> > > 617 344 9000   
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
>

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 20:29:39 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> been deployed. 

I don't think this is true; in this or any other WG.  Your claim runs
counter to the requirements for Draft Standard status. Do you have an
example RFC demonstrating this?

> There are many protocols that have never progressed beyond

This has certainly happened, but I think usually this is due to sloppiness
by those WG chairs to take care of the business of the working group and
move drafts along. Though this might be too harsh a criticism in some
cases, such as where the Experimental RFC lost consensus, but use/interest
was picked up later.

> mature. 

It is hard to say what the mental model of many participating in the WG
was.  However, it is not the case that to "obtain IETF standards status,
then get deployed" is "in practice only the way forward after a protocol
is reasonably mature".  The point of the RFC process is to define clearly
a protocol; test, analyze, and fix flaws; and move forward based on
consensus that something useful is being achieved.  It is not a rubber
stamp on "reasonably mature protocols".

Not to restart the subject Eric Raymond and other discussed on the main
IETF list over the last couple weeks, but the RFC process worked correctly
in the MARID WG. The proposed protocols were severely flawed, and
consensus could not be reached, so nothing useful could be accomplished.  
Some people are bitter about that result, and suggest that the IETF is
therefore going to be "left in the dustbin".  That isn't the first time
that claim has been leveled, nor will it be the last. The SPF idea is not
the last "ultimate spam solution", that will be found to have not quite
considered everything, or even considered enough to be more useful than
harmful.  It was a good try, and the authors should be credited. However,
reasonable people recognize when it's time to go back to the drawing
board. I think the SPF authors and propoenents need to get to work again
instead of complaining about the lack of ratification of their flawed
proposals.

I suggested previously that the authors take a hard, long look at
information theory, and whether the spam problem can be solved
technically, and in particular, to look at what sort of features of a spam
filter are possible and what sort of limits information theory imposes on
solutions.  I've suggested also that they have to remember that the
spammer has all the knowledge and privileges that they have.  And I also
suggest that instead of spam, they consider controlling an information
flow in general. Lets call it 'Vienna Sausage', which is simply unwanted,
ignoring the reasons for which it is unwanted.

> There is a high probability that the blogosphere will converge on

The "blogosphere"?  Is that like the punditariat?

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2004 21:07:53 -0600

In <[email-masked]> Dean Anderson <[email-masked]> writes:

> [...]                                                 The SPF idea is not

This working group never advanced SPF as a proposal.  It was involved
in the creation of SenderID, which has many technical and licensing
problems, but SenderID was never SPF.

SPF is progressing just fine, both publication of SPF records and SPF
checking are up sharply in the last month or so.  (This upsurge
occured before Microsoft and Meng published their new SenderID
proposal, so they have nothing to do with it.)  SPF has never been
considered by the SPF community as being an "ultimate spam solution",
and people who imply that it is generally are doing so to set up a
strawman argument.

-wayne