Re: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Am I correct to assume the header and boilerplate changes are just artifacts of this being a temporary “draft-kucherawy...” draft rather than an actual revision to rfc7601bis?

Otherwise, this would address my DISCUSS.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Jan 5, 2019, at 11:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Here's what I've come up with.  This is a diff between RFC7601 as published and what I propose as RFC7601bis to resolve all of the DISCUSSes and most of the COMMENTs from IESG review.  Please let me know if I've missed anything.  I'll post it at the end of the coming week if there are no issues raised.
> 
> http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rfc7601bis-from-rfc7601.diff.html <http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rfc7601bis-from-rfc7601.diff.html>
> 
> -MSK
> 
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:31 PM Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > Murray, would you please copy the relevant IANA Considerations
> > sections from RFC 7601 into 7601bis and change the tenses
> > appropriately (perhaps just with a sentence in each subsection that
> > says, "The following was done in the previous edition of this
> > document, RFC 7601:", or some such
> 
> Even better if you say something like "the following is unchanged from RFC 7601:".
> 
> >), and then let's have a quick
> > working group review of the result?  (And, of course, change it back
> > to "obsoletes" rather than "updates".)
> >
> > As it's editorial, I'm sure we don't need to go back through any
> > approval process, and we can get the DISCUSS cleared and move forward.
> 
> I agree. I think this is purely editorial, albeit an important issue for the final document.
> 
> > Thanks,
> > Barry
> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:00 PM Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, at 9:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> > > > I actually agree with this: I think the better answer is to go back to
> > > > "obsoletes" and to have this document include the details of what was
> > > > put in the registries before.  But the working group decided to do it
> > > > the other way, and there's been criticism in the past of ADs (and, so,
> > > > by extension, chairs) picking on this sort of stuff, so I decided to
> > > > let it go.  I'll let the IESG sort this one out, but I'll go on record
> > > > as saying what I think the better way to handle it is.
> > >
> > > I think incorporating older registrations is the cleaner way of dealing with Ben's & Benjamin's DISCUSSes, as then the document is self contained and there is no need for readers to see obsoleted RFCs. So this would be my preference.
> > >
> > > If the WG doesn't want to do this, then the document needs editing to be correct as per Benjamin's DISCUSS.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Alexey
> > >
> > > > That said, I don't think it's a huge deal either way.
> > > >
> > > > Barry
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:09 PM Ben Campbell <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> > > > > draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: Discuss
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
> > > > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > DISCUSS:
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > This is mainly a process discuss. I share Alvaro's concern about this being
> > > > > marked as "updating" RFC7601, when it seem like a full replacement. I'm
> > > > > promoting it to a DISCUSS because I think this needs to be resolved before
> > > > > publication.
> > > > >
> > > > > The current structure will make it very difficult for readers to figure out
> > > > > which parts of each doc they need to worry about. I think it needs to either go
> > > > > back to "obsoleting" 7601, or it needs to be recast to just talk about the
> > > > > changes. Note that if the former path is chosen, the IANA considerations in
> > > > > 7601 will need to be copied forward.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > COMMENT:
> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > I mostly just reviewed the diff. Thank you for mostly avoiding unnecessary
> > > > > changes. That makes the diff tools much more useful than they are for bis
> > > > > drafts that make wholesale organization and stylistic changes.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Barry
> > > > --
> > > > Barry Leiba  ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>)
> > > > http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/ <http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/>
> > > >