Re: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC BoF at IETF 87, Berlin

["John R Levine" <[e-mail]>]

>> I understand why you might want to tell the IETF that it can only
>> change the minor documents, not the major one, but I don't see why the
>> IETF would be interested.
>
> This is my take on the process so far.
>
> The spec has been handed over to IETF already. IETF can do what it likes 
> with it. So I don't think the DMARC.org group worries (much) about what 
> can be changed or not.

The draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 document has a license that, as I read 
it, is not compatible with a standards track document.  It wouldn't be 
hard to fix, but it needs fixing.

> The question is: is there sufficiently enough work to be done in the 
> current spec (besides editorial) that warrants an IETF WG to work on the
> spec?

That's not the question I see.  It's whether this is an IETF effort or a 
dmarc.org effort.  Maybe the base document will be all done by the time 
the WG is spun up, maybe not, but that should be the WG's decision.  I 
think everyone agrees that the BCP is a long way from being publishable, 
so there's certainly work there.

Regards,
John Levine, [e-mail], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
"I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.