[dmarc-ietf] Éric Vyncke's Block on charter-ietf-dmarc-02-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)

[Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dmarc-02-00: Block

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/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
BLOCK:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While I can only support the goal of this draft charter, I find it too vague on
some topics.

1) please provide references to `The revision to the original document, along
with one of two reporting documents`

2) please also provide reference to `This closure left behind a second
reporting document` (even if expired)

About the reclaiming of the I-D from RFC editor, I am afraid that this will be
done for something more than fixing typos, i.e., it should be sent back to the
to-be-created WG with the full process of WGLC, IETF LC, IESG evaluation. Else,
why re-charter this WG ?


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

I am puzzled by `base document produced by the working group includes normative
references to this document`, if I understand the sentence correctly (the use
of `this` is a little ambiguous), then a RFC was published with a draft as a
normative reference ? Or is the 'original document' not yet published hence
this WG (see my BLOCK points as it is really unclear).

Also suggest to request the RFC Editor & the AD to remove the `base document`
from the RFC editor queue and send it back to the WG as soon as this WG is
chartered.