Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: No Objection
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.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't understand why this document is tagged as an Update to RFC7601 and not as Obsoleting it. This change was made between the -03 (which was the one in the IETF LC) and the -04 (current) versions. As far as I can tell, the contents of this document are the same as rfc7601, + 2 new headers. Just as the reference for the Authentication-Results Header Field is being updated to point at this document, the registry pointers to rfc7601 can also be moved. I note that this point was brought up during both the AD Review [1] and the IETF LC [2], which is why I'm not balloting DISCUSS. However, I think that the solution (Updating instead of Obsoleting) is not the correct one. [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ug2XvXqGjyd6S7utkrSq7pq3wv0 [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/L28CWVReXoBBiSSy2tc-JPeXD3I _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
