ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)

2014-07-17 14:13:08
Section 16.4 requests the creation of a registry where
assignments require "IETF Review".
...
I don't think that the IESG would be okay with the
creation of an IETF registry without IETF Review.  I don't know whether the
IESG has discussed that point.

It has, and there's no problem.  The IESG has objected to Independent
Stream documents creating registries with policies of Expert Review or
Specification required, because those commit the IESG to appointing a
Designated Expert, with all the management necessary for that.

But other registration policies don't commit anyone to anything, and
an Independent Stream document creating a registry that requires IETF
Stream RFCs in oder to register in it... is perfectly fine.  Yes, the
IESG has discussed this in relation to other Independent Stream
documents.

And, in fact, it's possible that a dmarcext working group that might
be chartered might be the first use of that registry.

wouldn't describe the situation with respect to DMARC as the IESG being
proactive [1] given that there is probably significant deployment of the
protocol.  Please note that I am not basing my opinion solely on the eight
domains mentioned above.

I still don't understand what you expect to have done here.  The IESG
is evaluating this charter.  If there's a change you want to see in
the charter text, please clearly state it.  If there's something you
want the IESG to consider as it evaluates the charter, please be clear
about exactly what that is, so the IESG can consider it.

Barry

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>