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

["Murray S. Kucherawy" <[e-mail]>]

Salut!

On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 11:14 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
[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.


> 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Happy telechat,

-MSK