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

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

In case it’s not obvious, that would be sufficient for me to clear.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Nov 30, 2018, at 2:54 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> 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), 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.
> 
> Thanks,
> Barry
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:00 PM Alexey Melnikov <[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]> 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
>>>> 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/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 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])
>>> http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/
>>>