[dmarc-ietf] Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on charter-ietf-dmarc-02-00: (with COMMENT)

Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 07 May 2025 07:00 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <174660121847.858592.1050980118662590839@dt-datatracker-58d4498dbd-6gzjf>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:18 -0700
Message-ID-Hash: 4EIXB5HT76UXGRAM44UZDATELFLUWWJD
CC: dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, dmarc@ietf.org
Reply-To: Ketan Talaulikar <ketant.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on charter-ietf-dmarc-02-00: (with COMMENT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/HEV54T_-mjNItJRnRURq0LlDEvU>

Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dmarc-02-00: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dmarc/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I found some portions of this charter text odd. I understand the peculiar
situation here but still have some concerns and suggestions to address them.

1) The document in question does seem to have a nice/clear short title - DMARC
Failure Reporting document. Can this name/term be used consistently to refer to
it throughout the charter text rather than referring to it with names such as
"dangling"?

2) How about something like below to not use this "un-abandon" term and instead
something more positive? CURRENT There now appears to be consensus to recharter
in order to “un-abandon” the dangling document and complete the work.

SUGGEST
There now appears to be consensus to restart the WG in order to adopt the DMARC
Failure Reporting document and complete the work for its publication as an IETF
Standard.

3) I find the use of "instance" very odd. Why is it necessary given that the
history of WG charters is always archived. Do we want to setup a precedent of
multi-instance WGs ? IOW, what is lost if we just remove "This instance of"
from that sentence? Also, I believe we do have the option of "restarting" WGs
for specific purposes after they have concluded previous work - so, we should
just say "restart" (or something like that).

4) I don't find the below sentence as being necessary in the charter since it
is about document processing and the IESG are not bound by WG charters as far
as this process is concerned. What, if anything, is lost if this sentence is
taken away?

CURRENT
The responsible Area Director will have discretion regarding whether a full
Last Call and IESG loop is needed to review those limited modifications.

[dmarc-ietf] Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on c… Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker