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

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Bonjour Murray,

Thanks for your reply. I think that my BLOCK is really easy to fix, see below for EV>

Regards

-éric

From: Murray S. Kucherawy <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 8 May 2025 at 09:16
To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] Éric Vyncke's Block on charter-ietf-dmarc-02-00: (with BLOCK and COMMENT)
Salut!

On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 11:14 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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)

draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis included normative references to draft-ietf-dmarc-aggregate-reporting and draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting.  The former two made it to the RFC Editor queue while the latter was abandoned and the WG closed.  That leaves the main document (*-dmarcbis) permanently in MISSREF state.

EV> understood, but please let’s make it clear by adding these draft names in the charter, then I am clearing my BLOCK.

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 ?

The goal of this provision is to prevent the reconstituted WG from relitigating things that it already had consensus to publish.  It took them ten years to get here, and we don't want to create an opportunity for this to continue indefinitely.

So, in essence, the intent is: If you can finish the abandoned document without touching the base document, do that.  If you have to tweak the base document, you may only do so to the extent that you have to to deal with this specific problem.  The AD is empowered to use his best judgement to figure out whether any of the reviews you mention are reasonable or necessary after reviewing the proposed changes, and invoke those.

EV> OK, I understand the goal. Consider this part of my BLOCK ballot as non-existent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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).

Yes, exactly.

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.

We could do that too, I suppose, though I would hope we can keep most or all of the constraints otherwise listed above so as to avoid reopening things that were settled at long last.  A new WGLC if we need it, for instance, should be simple.

EV> please consider my COMMENT part as addressed per your reply.

Happy telechat,

EV> curious to see whether you will join at 0700 AM PST ;-)

-MSK