On Tue, Jan 15, 2019, at 3:51 AM, Ben Campbell wrote: > Am I correct to assume the header and boilerplate changes are just > artifacts of this being a temporary “draft-kucherawy...” draft rather > than an actual revision to rfc7601bis?I believe so. > > Otherwise, this would address my DISCUSS. > > Thanks! > > Ben. > >> On Jan 5, 2019, at 11:45 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy >> <superu...@gmail.com> wrote:>> >> Here's what I've come up with. This is a diff between RFC7601 as >> published and what I propose as RFC7601bis to resolve all of the >> DISCUSSes and most of the COMMENTs from IESG review. Please let me >> know if I've missed anything. I'll post it at the end of the coming >> week if there are no issues raised.>> >> http://www.blackops.org/~msk/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-rfc7601bis-from-rfc7601.diff.html>> >> >> -MSK >> >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 1:31 PM Alexey Melnikov >> <aamelni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:>>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Barry >> Leiba wrote: >>> > Murray, would you please copy the relevant IANA Considerations >>> > sections from RFC 7601 into 7601bis and change the tenses >>> > appropriately (perhaps just with a sentence in each subsection >>> > that>>> > says, "The following was done in the previous edition of this >>> > document, RFC 7601:", or some such >>> >>> Even better if you say something like "the following is unchanged >>> from RFC 7601:".>>> >>> >), and then let's have a quick >>> > working group review of the result? (And, of course, change it >>> > back>>> > to "obsoletes" rather than "updates".) >>> > >>> > As it's editorial, I'm sure we don't need to go back through any>>> > >>> approval process, and we can get the DISCUSS cleared and move >>> > forward.>>> >>> I agree. I think this is purely editorial, albeit an important >>> issue for the final document.>>> >>> > Thanks, >>> > Barry >>> > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:00 PM Alexey Melnikov >>> > <aamelni...@fastmail.fm> wrote:>>> > > >>> > > Hi all, >>> > > >>> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018, at 9:39 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: >>> > > > I actually agree with this: I think the better answer is to >>> > > > go back to>>> > > > "obsoletes" and to have this document include >>> the details of >>> > > > what was>>> > > > put in the registries before. But the working >>> group decided >>> > > > to do it>>> > > > the other way, and there's been criticism in the >>> past of ADs >>> > > > (and, so,>>> > > > by extension, chairs) picking on this sort of >>> stuff, so I >>> > > > decided to>>> > > > let it go. I'll let the IESG sort this one >>> out, but I'll go >>> > > > on record>>> > > > as saying what I think the better way to handle >>> it is. >>> > > >>> > > I think incorporating older registrations is the cleaner way of >>> > > dealing with Ben's & Benjamin's DISCUSSes, as then the document >>> > > is self contained and there is no need for readers to see >>> > > obsoleted RFCs. So this would be my preference.>>> > > >>> > > If the WG doesn't want to do this, then the document needs >>> > > editing to be correct as per Benjamin's DISCUSS.>>> > > >>> > > Best Regards, >>> > > Alexey >>> > > >>> > > > That said, I don't think it's a huge deal either way. >>> > > > >>> > > > Barry >>> > > > >>> > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 6:09 PM Ben Campbell >>> > > > <b...@nostrum.com> wrote:>>> > > > > >>> > > > > Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for>>> > > >>> > > draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: Discuss >>> > > > > >>> > > > > 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/>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > > > ----------->>> > > > > DISCUSS: >>> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > > > ----------->>> > > > > >>> > > > > This is mainly a process discuss. I share Alvaro's concern >>> > > > > about this being>>> > > > > marked as "updating" RFC7601, when it >>> seem like a full >>> > > > > replacement. I'm>>> > > > > promoting it to a DISCUSS because I >>> think this needs to be >>> > > > > resolved before>>> > > > > publication. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > The current structure will make it very difficult for >>> > > > > readers to figure out>>> > > > > which parts of each doc they >>> need to worry about. I think >>> > > > > it needs to either go>>> > > > > back to "obsoleting" 7601, or it >>> needs to be recast to just >>> > > > > talk about the>>> > > > > changes. Note that if the former path >>> is chosen, the IANA >>> > > > > considerations in>>> > > > > 7601 will need to be copied forward. >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > > > ----------->>> > > > > COMMENT: >>> > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > > > ----------->>> > > > > >>> > > > > I mostly just reviewed the diff. Thank you for mostly >>> > > > > avoiding unnecessary>>> > > > > changes. That makes the diff >>> tools much more useful than >>> > > > > they are for bis>>> > > > > drafts that make wholesale >>> organization and stylistic >>> > > > > changes.>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > -- >>> > > > Barry >>> > > > -- >>> > > > Barry Leiba (barryle...@computer.org) >>> > > > http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/ >>> > > > > Email had 1 attachment:
> * signature.asc 1k (application/pgp-signature)
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
