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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

> -----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.

Hi Martin,

Can you explain how you got that?  I thought the charter was pretty clear about what is intended, rather than pointing off to what's in some draft.  In essence it says "Here's what we plan to do", followed by "Here's the draft where we've started doing it."

> At the absolute minimum, please refer to a numbered or dated version of
> draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope, otherwise its author(s) can easily change
> the scope of the WG.
> 
> In addition, draft-mehnle-spfbis-scope isn't even existing; I'm really
> not sure that's the way to charter a WG. Same for draft-kitterman-
> rfc4408bis.

Yes, it was ready only after the temporary embargo on postings was established.  He'll get it posted very soon now that it's lifted.  I sent him a reminder.

The other one is http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kitterman-4408bis/, so the name is slightly wrong; easily fixed.

I haven't ever had the request to name a specific version as a starting point in a charter before, which is why it wasn't done here.

> If the above problems are sorted out, I also hope that the new WG can
> deal with EAI appropriately.

That is indeed a consideration; see http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ellermann-spf-eai/.  The group could take this on as well, though the scope won't quite be so tight at first if it does.  I'm fine either way.

-MSK