On 7/16/2014 5:20 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
The draft charter text only notes the fact of submission and says
nothing about the further processing that has, might or will take place.
The IESG assessment is part of the 'will'.
I'll quote from
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13031.html
"Existing deployment of DMARC has demonstrated utility at internet
scale"
If I am not mistaken implementers are encouraged to request IETF
protocol parameters assignments before deploying them at internet
scale. In my opinion an IESG assessment would be useful as the IESG is
chartering a working group about DMARC. I am taking a previous (IESG)
conflict review into consideration
(conflict-review-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt).
SM,
Unfortunately I think I'm more confused now.
The existing draft has been submitted independently. As such it is not
part of the working group chartering process. Any IESG activity, with
regards to the independent submission, is independent of this wg draft
charter. The independent submission is mentioned in the draft charter
only as some convenient background.
With respect to protocol parameter assignments, you appear to be
suggesting that something is or has been problematic, but I can't tell
what it is. In any event, are there changes to the draft charter that
you are suggesting?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net