[marf] Working group status, and progress on the active documents

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

The chairs would like to see some progress on the documents the group
is working on.  The group is still in the middle of a lot of work --
let's look at getting it done, please.


** draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery-01
JD posted this version on 27 July, and there have been no comments.
JD, what do you consider the status of this version to be?  Do you
think it needs more work, or is it ready to go?  Everyone else, please
review this version and post comments, or let us know that you've
reviewed it and you think it's ready.


Then there's the four-way split:

** draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-01
This has had the most recent action.  Hilda posted this version on 9
August, and Murray posted his comments on 18 August, here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01245.html

Resolving Murray's comments will require another draft version.  But
in his message, he also asked some chair questions; we need feedback
on this, so Hilda can do an -02 version that can go into working group
last call.


** draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-01
Scott posted this version on 11 July.  Murray commented here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01248.html

Again, there are some questions in Murray's comments; please give your
input.  Scott, what do you consider the status of this version to be?


** draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting-02
Murray posted this version on 15 May.  There've been no comments at
all.  Has anyone looked at it?  Do we think we have the split right,
and have the right bits been split out of it?


** draft-ietf-marf-redaction-00
JD posted the first working-group version on 6 April.  The only
comment so far is from Murray, who thinks it's ready.  We need more
reviews.  JD, do you think this version is ready, or do you intend to
post a revision?  Others, please review and comment, or let us know
that you think it's done.


Finally, we have this one pending:

** draft-jdfalk-marf-as-00
JD posted this on 13 May, and there's been little substantive said
about it.  It's how we plan to address the charter item that coincides
with MAAWG's feedback loop document (draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp).  Is
this the path the WG wants to take?  Shall we adopt this as a WG
document, and proceed with it?  Reviews and comments, please.


Barry, as chair