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

[[e-mail]]

Hi Murray,

Thanks for the clarifications.

Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

De : Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
Envoyé : vendredi 2 mai 2025 19:01
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>
Cc : The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; IETF DMARC WG <[e-mail]>
Objet : Re: [dmarc-ietf] Mohamed Boucadair's No Objection on charter-ietf-dmarc-02-00: (with COMMENT)


Howdy.

On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 2:03 AM Mohamed Boucadair via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[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. :-)
[Med]  We have state metdata for these matters :-)

# 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).
[Med] Interesting! I see this more as context information that will be stale once the group is created.

# 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.
[Med] Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. There are also WGs which were created, concluded, and after sometime resurrected with the same name (radext, for example) without mention of any “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.
[Med] If you kept this text, please reword to make it clear this is business as usual. Thanks.

# 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.
[Med] Yes, please add such milestone. Thanks.

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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.