On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Pete Resnick <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 8/29/14 12:35 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnick<[email protected]>  wrote:
>>   
>>> Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]:
>>> 
>>> While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for internal 
>>> WG management (and in fact I think you could even add more of them), I 
>>> think for the external-facing milestones on the charter page, you should 
>>> have the more common externally visible milestones like "initial draft of 
>>> X" or "submission of completed document Y to the IESG", etc.
>>> 
>>> That work for you?
>>>     
>> Yes it does.  I'll rework the external-facing milestones to perhaps remove 
>> some confusion.
>>   
> 
> Are you OK with the following edits?
> 
> Dec 2014    Complete draft on DMARC interop issues + possible methods to 
> address
> Mar 2015    Complete draft on DMARC improvements to better support indirect 
> email flows
> May 2015    Complete draft on DMARC Usage Guide
> May 2015    Complete draft on changes to DMARC base spec

Dear Pete,

The charter statement indicates work on a public suffix concept is 
out-of-scope.  This is fine provided the definition used in the charter is 
retained:

"An organizational domain is the 'base' name that is allocated from a public 
registry;" 

With the "root" of domains being the top-most element, an organizational domain 
therefore exists immediately below that of the registry (or that of the 
registrar's domain).  Any other arrangement would create an unmanageable 
situation. 

Those playing the role of registering or as registrar is determined by assigned 
international organizations managing these functions.  While some may insist 
they should be able to offer some role of registrar to establish higher 
granularity for organizational domains, only those so authorized as a registrar 
can be recognized as playing that role.  This means only the defined 
organizational domain is able to subsequently increased granularity below their 
domain by way of their policy assertions.  Such policy assertions should be a 
matter handled within the WG as related to organizational domain policy.

Regards,
Douglas Otis

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to