As soon as the chair feedback is complete I'll post the -02 for the draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-01
Thanks H > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Barry Leiba > Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 6:34 AM > To: Message Abuse Report Format working group > Subject: [marf] Working group status, and progress on the active documents > > The chairs would like to see some progress on the documents the group is > working on. The group is still in the middle of a lot of work -- let's look at > getting it done, please. > > > ** draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery-01 > JD posted this version on 27 July, and there have been no comments. > JD, what do you consider the status of this version to be? Do you think it > needs more work, or is it ready to go? Everyone else, please review this > version and post comments, or let us know that you've reviewed it and you > think it's ready. > > > Then there's the four-way split: > > ** draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report-01 > This has had the most recent action. Hilda posted this version on 9 August, > and Murray posted his comments on 18 August, here: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01245.html > > Resolving Murray's comments will require another draft version. But in his > message, he also asked some chair questions; we need feedback on this, so > Hilda can do an -02 version that can go into working group last call. > > > ** draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting-01 > Scott posted this version on 11 July. Murray commented here: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01248.html > > Again, there are some questions in Murray's comments; please give your > input. Scott, what do you consider the status of this version to be? > > > ** draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting-02 > Murray posted this version on 15 May. There've been no comments at all. > Has anyone looked at it? Do we think we have the split right, and have the > right bits been split out of it? > > > ** draft-ietf-marf-redaction-00 > JD posted the first working-group version on 6 April. The only comment so > far is from Murray, who thinks it's ready. We need more reviews. JD, do you > think this version is ready, or do you intend to post a revision? Others, > please review and comment, or let us know that you think it's done. > > > Finally, we have this one pending: > > ** draft-jdfalk-marf-as-00 > JD posted this on 13 May, and there's been little substantive said about it. > It's how we plan to address the charter item that coincides with MAAWG's > feedback loop document (draft-jdfalk-maawg-cfblbcp). Is this the path the > WG wants to take? Shall we adopt this as a WG document, and proceed with > it? Reviews and comments, please. > > > Barry, as chair > _______________________________________________ > marf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
