Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group charter proposal

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Tue, 16 April 2013 14:47 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49F0021F9733 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:47:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sSlp0YfD6dAg for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sbh17.songbird.com (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE75421F9500 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.66] (76-218-9-215.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.9.215]) (authenticated bits=0) by sbh17.songbird.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r3GEl5Dg030713 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:47:06 -0700
Message-ID: <516D6469.3060109@bbiw.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:47:05 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
References: <CAL0qLwbcH-yOj0MxfGghQZPwGMt5mRBY5U5zBxdXc1oX6SogHA@mail.gmail.com><3121454.RJqk1xG6s9@scott-latitude-e6320><516C9824.6040503@dcrocker.net><8990489.xAljaCmULD@scott-latitude-e6320> <516CC734.6050303@dcrocker.net> <010901ce3a7b$d60eb6c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <010901ce3a7b$d60eb6c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 (sbh17.songbird.com [72.52.113.17]); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:47:06 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Revised DMARC working group charter proposal
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:47:09 -0000

On 4/16/2013 1:24 AM, t.petch wrote:
> There is also the option of documenting existing practice, either via
> the ISE or as an Individual submission, as an Informational RFC, with an
> IETF Working Group later producing a Standards Track series of RFC of an
> evolving specification.  (I have seen two examples of this).


Right.  I was focused only on documents being brought into a wg, but it 
probably helps to be more complete and cite the (not all that uncommon) 
path of starting with an Independent RFC that is informational.

d/
-- 
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  bbiw.net