Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 2011/11/14 15:31, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Martin J. Dürst" [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 10:08 PM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Proposed "spfbis" working group charter
>>
>> I'm somewhat surprised that there is a long charter text, but it ends
>> essentially with "what we'll do is in draft foo". I think the "what
>> we'll do" is the core of the charter, and shouldn't be just a
>> reference.
>
> It was brought to my attention that you might believe the working group's scope is defined in the "-scope" draft.  It's not; that document proposes an extension to SPF called "scope", but doesn't contain any scope definition for the proposed working group.

Yes indeed. I read:

	* Extensions to SPF other than the one specified in the "scope"
	  document.  The working group will re-charter to process other
	  specific proposed extensions as they are identified.

So I though that what's in the scope document is in scope, and other 
things are out of scope, so the scope document defines the WG scope.

If that's not the case, I propose to rewrite the above to:

	* Extensions to SPF other than the "scope" extension (see
           draft-...)  The working group will re-charter to process other
	  specific proposed extensions as they are identified.

Actually, the fact that the "scope" extension is in-scope should be 
mentioned before the list of scope exclusions, it shouldn't be included 
as a side-effect of the exclusions.

Regards,    Martin.