[co-chairs: I appreciate the latitude in letting me post this here, as there appears to be no other appropriate venue, and presumably we'll be done with this part of the work very soon anyway.]
I've received some on-list (which you've seen) and off-list feedback since posting -05. My understanding is that the ISE is waiting for review comments from specific people he's asked (Eliot) but also is interested in any other review comments people might be able to provide before advancing to publication. I have only two changes pending for an -06 based on the feedback I've received and an observation of my own, namely: 1) Several editorial changes that don't alter the meaning of the technical work at all; and 2) A change to the IANA Considerations that reduces the requirements on the new registries from IETF Review to Specification Required (see RFC5226). The justification for (1) is pretty straightforward in that they are of little consequence overall. The justification for (2) is largely procedural: I believe an independent submission, not being a product of the IETF, shouldn't create such a burden on the IETF; furthermore, there's really no reason for such stringent review of extensions that don't seem likely to appear anyway. The original choice was made way back when we planned to do this document on the Standards Track, but that's not how things worked out. So if anyone feels comfortable making comments on whether or not such an -06 would be ready for publication (i.e., -05, which is public, plus the above changes), please say so on this list so the ISE can see them. Any other feedback is of course welcome. I will post what I have for -06 as soon as the embargo lifts on Monday. I have not as yet included Doug's proposed changes as they don't seem to be supported (there has only been opposition voiced so far), but that does mean they were considered. We would like to put this document to bed as soon as is practical as it will be the reference basis for the current and future WG milestones, so hopefully reviews will be quick and plentiful. :-) Thanks, -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
