(now hatless in this context, but still opinionated) On Fri, Jun 27, 2025 at 7:51 AM Dotzero <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 6:53 PM Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote: > >> None of this is in scope. We’re deciding whether to publish the document >> or not. >> >> Please keep your comments within chartered grounds. >> >> Seth, > > Can you clarify your statement regarding scope? From the IESG recharter > email: > > " This instance of the DMARC working group is chartered for the sole > purpose of completing the “failure reporting” document and sending it to > the IESG for publication as a Standards Track item, or removing failure > reporting from DMARC in its entirety" > > It would seem to me a discussion of what would be needed to meet > the "completing" part of the recharter.should be in scope. > My perspective is that I can't tell whether what Doug is saying is responsive to what the charter is asking. It's all very abstract. I can infer, I suppose, that Doug's point is that he thinks these reports are needed and that we should publish this, and that he's proposing some edits, but it would be nice for that to be explicit. Absent such context, I don't know what he wants us to do here. A more crisp statement on the specific charter question would settle the first part, and then specific edits to the existing draft(s) that are within the charter's scope would make it easier to proceed. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
