On 05/18/2016 01:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
And I agree, but then I also mentioned that we're now operating
under the second phase of the charter, or so the chairs seemed to
indicate explicitly with their "phase 1 is done" message. This
citation is in the first; the proscription against "additional
mail authentication technologies" (which also, by the way, exactly
describes ARC) that I'm worried about is in the second.
Reducing this to my basic issue, setting aside the matter of phases:
There's one clause in the charter that says ARC is fine, and one that
proscribes it. You appear to be claiming that the first one wins over
the second, plain and simple. I don't understand why it's plain and
simple. Why do they not have equal effect? Is there some "default
allow" nuance when interpreting ambiguous charters?
Weighing into a conversation that I only half understand, the charter
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/> appears to talk about 3
separate Tracks, the apparent implication being that any work item for
this WG needs to be in scope for at least one of those Tracks, not that
a work item needs to fit into all of them; I would suggest that applying
the latter interpretation would (a) contradict the plain language of the
charter, and (b) disqualify almost all work items that the WG might
consider. As ARC fits squarely into scope for Track 1, the fact that it
has characteristics which preclude its being in scope for Track 2 does
not by itself put it out of scope for this WG. There is no contradiction
here.
Separately, the WG's work has been divided into three phases which,
although not explained, align approximately with one track each and
appear to have been set up to focus the WG's efforts sequentially on one
item at a time with a view to actually getting deliverables delivered.
This gives rise to the observation that ARC is in scope for Phase I but
not in scope for Phase II. So far so good, except that Phase I is
currently considered to be complete, meaning that ARC is not in scope
for the current or remaining Phases, despite it being in scope for the
WG. The good news is that reopening a Phase does not require
re-chartering, just consensus of the WG, which is presumably the reason
for Barry's question. The dilemma would appear to be that reopening
Phases willy-nilly would risk slowing the WG's progress still further,
while slavishly sticking to the plan would exclude work on a very
worthwhile mechanism which (a) came into being after the charter was
written, (b) is a near perfect match for one of the Phase I proposed
items, and (c) provides worthwhile capabilities for that proposed item
that no other mechanism addressed in Phase I provides.
My view is that ARC is a sufficiently compelling addition that reopening
Phase I is warranted.
- Roland
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
