Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-dmarc-03-00: No Objection
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.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dmarc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "DMARC", paragraph 1 > Accordingly, DMARC is being rechartered to publish a document that moves RFC 8617 to > historical/obsolete status, including prose describing the history and current status of the work. The charter states the WG will "publish a document that moves RFC 8617 to historical/obsolete status." But under the IETF process, an Informational RFC does not, by itself, change another RFC's status. Per the IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic (2014-07-20), a status-change document is required — maintained in the datatracker and linked to the affected RFC — to actually effect the reclassification. Also, the charter uses the phrase "historical/obsolete status" as if these are synonymous. They are not. Since no replacement for ARC is contemplated, the correct designation is Historic, not "obsolete." Using both terms in the charter creates ambiguity about what the WG is actually being asked to produce: a replacement that obsoletes ARC, or a rationale document that supports a Historic designation. The charter should use "Historic" consistently and precisely. "DMARC", paragraph 2 > Milestones The charter states a six-month deadline for the sole deliverable, but the Milestones section here is blank. For IESG approval, at a minimum, a single milestone should be present. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
