[dmarc-ietf] Re: Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on charter-ietf-dmarc-02-00: (with COMMENT)

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

Howdy.

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 2:03 AM Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> # I guess this will be deleted from the version to be sent for external
> review:
>
> CURRENT:
>   DMARC Charter [DRAFT]
>

I mean, it is still a draft during the review. :-)


> # Not sure which "consensus" we are talking about here. I think that we can
> simply delete this sentence:
>
> CURRENT:
>    There now appears to be consensus to recharter
>    in order to “un-abandon” the dangling document and complete the work.
>

I was referring to the consensus of the DMARC WG (which doesn't actually
exist, but it's still possible to take a read of that community, and that's
where the discussion happened).


> # An instance of a WG: what does that mean?
>
> CURRENT:
>   This instance of the DMARC working group
>

The first instance was the chartering in 2014 and termination in 2025.  On
completion of this chartering, the WG would be in its second instance.

DKIM, for example, is presently on its third instance.


> # Business as usual
>
> CURRENT:
>   The responsible Area
>   Director will have discretion regarding whether a full Last Call and
>   IESG loop is needed to review those limited modifications.
>
> Not sure we need to have in this in the charter. "normal" process will be
> followed for these matters, IMO.
>

You're right that this is business-as-usual, but for people not fully
versed in this sort of esoterica, I thought it would be helpful to include.


> # Should we include a formal milestone for this check?
>
> CURRENT:
>   If it fails to meet this deadline or reaches consensus to cease work
>   on the document, it will abandon that objective and instead begin the
>   work of removing all references from the base document to the failure
>   reporting document, and the latter will be permanently abandoned.
>

A "decide" milestone?  I guess we could.  Usually milestones are used to
indicate a specific bit of document progress, but there's no rule saying we
can't have one that says "if we get here and we're stuck, we will then
follow this specific path".

-MSK