[Sorry, that sent before it was ready.] On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 4:48 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> The WG obviously took a good deal of time. But that's not a good reason > to > shut it down abruptly. > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/9FI6knDM1unxVy_9H711yZISNVc/ I don't think you can say the end was abrupt. 10 years is a mighty long time, and by about year eight we were spending our time wandering into the weeds, rehashing old debates, or doing nothing, anything but focusing and finishing. At the San Francisco meeting I pleaded for progress and some decisions, and things barely improved if at all. It was time to finish up, so I dropped a deadline. > The conclusions of that thread were to quickly finish up the document. > Not > dropping it. Otherwise, we had eliminated ruf=. > > Let me quote John: > I would prefer to clarify the spec to encourage people who send > reports to send them in the right format and otherwise leave it > alone. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/dI1OHjOdROSYNdV-tcFca3rkDjo/ > > And Barry: > As chair, I agree with John here: we have the document on our queue > and we should wrap it up and get it out. But we should not spend a > great deal of time on it. > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/j1xy-eoU60mAAe6dErXxep_MYTU/ And what I said was: It's up to you to organize yourselves and find the energy to complete any work you want to get done by that deadline. Any document that has not gotten through the IESG will die with the working group, which includes the base document if it suffers neglect in the interim. And there is no guarantee that anyone on the next IESG will be willing to sponsor it afterwards. ...and here we are. I'm not clear how to measure a WG's energy, especially after closing it. > However, let me ask if, in case we can score a venue to terminate the work > properly, will we then be able to talk about my fix-forwarding draft? That's up to the Area Directors. If it were up to me, and reopening the WG is the call, I would be setting an extremely tight charter to resolve only the reporting question, and probably a very short deadline. Any other work would be out of scope. Also, if the consensus is option 2 or 3, I would argue we don't need a venue just to detach the documents. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- dmarc@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to dmarc-le...@ietf.org
