Hello all, Your co-chairs have been re-evaluating our progress as a working group, concerned with our declining productivity and lack of substantive and timely document reviews. We're wondering if there's still interest in continuing this work, or if we should start the process of spinning down.
Here's where we're at on our current deliverables: - ARF applicability statement: exists, but no recent activity - Auth-failure report format: Completed two Last Calls; awaiting a (hopefully final) round of edits - DKIM reporting: exists, but no recent activity - Redaction draft: In IETF last call until 12/15 - Reporting discovery: exists, but no recent activity - SPF reporting: exists, but no recent activity - SpamRep convergence plan: none We feel that SpamRep has fallen out of favour on the OMA side. Their working group's chair considers the activity "stalled" as there have been no implementation reports since they published their candidate specification. It doesn't make much sense for us to expend energy to figure out a convergence plan given this, plus we have not been successful at identifying a champion in MARF for that work. Thus, we don't believe it's practical for MARF to pursue this deliverable. So by way of taking the pulse of the working group, here are some questions about what's left: For draft-ietf-marf-as: Do we feel we want to simply endorse the use of ARF as it is defined in RFC5965 and RFC6449, or do we wish to give different operational advice than what they say? In the absence of any of the latter, the former is low-hanging fruit, which means we can close out that charter item rather easily. But it has to reflect consensus either way. For draft-ietf-marf-authfailure-report: This last round of edits should be enough to send it to the IESG. For draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting: <participant> I would like to revisit this once more, especially based on John and Steve's feedback from about a month ago. I'll do so in a separate thread. I've found this work to be very helpful in the last several years and it would be helpful to write down a way to do what it's trying to do, even if different from what was originally developed. Is there interest in helping me to do so? </participant> <co-chair> If the working group doesn't wish to pursue this at all, it can be returned to an individual submission for publication via that route. </co-chair> For draft-ietf-marf-reporting-discovery: Does the working group feel this work is useful to pursue? If so, is there someone willing to step forward and act as editor? For draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting: Does the working group feel this work is useful to pursue? If not, we will suggest it be added to the proposed charter for SPFBIS or a future version of it. Thanks, -MSK, as co-chair
_______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
