Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-dmarc-01-00: Block
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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BLOCK: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) I realize this re-charter is motivated by a small update, but it seems confusing to maintain text that is out-of-date when publishing a re-charter. Someone already pointed out the issue with RFC 7960; I would also argue that the following change is needed: OLD The existing DMARC base specification has been submitted as an Independent Submission to become an Informational RFC. NEW The existing DMARC base specification has been published as RFC 7489 in the Independent Stream. (2) "Any issues related to the email authentication space ..." seems like a rather broad charge. I understand the desire to work on draft-levine-appsarea-eaiauth, but does that really justify this much wider charter expansion? I feel like the point of the chartering process is to avoid this kind of catch-all. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "2. Reviewing and improving the base DMARC specification The working group will not develop additional mail authentication technologies, but may document authentication requirements that are desirable." It's not clear how documenting authentication requirements implies directly improving the base specification. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
