Same, and I volunteer to co-chair. -MSK
On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 1:55 PM Barry Leiba <[email protected]> wrote: > The charter works for me, and I'm happy to continue chairing to get this > done. > > Barry > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 4:24 PM Andrew Newton (andy) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Thanks to all who participated in the discussion prompted by Barry > regarding the next steps for the failure reporting document. > > > > Barry laid out three options: 1) complete failed reporting and request > AD sponsorship, 2) abandon the work and fall back to the older DMARC spec > for reference, or 3) abandon the work and remove all references to failure > reporting. > > > > In my review of the discussions there were many in favor of both option > 1 and option 3. > > > > I would like to offer a modification to both of these options, which is > to charter a very narrowly focused working group to do one or the other. > That is, the working group would have a very narrow window of time to > finish and send to the IESG a DMARC failure reports specification or it > will change the current DMARC draft to remove references to the failure > reports. > > > > Murray has helpfully put together a proposed charter for such a working > group, which you may find below. Please understand that this charter must > be approved by the IETF. > > > > I would appreciate responses no later than 11 April. > > > > -andy, ART AD > > > > === BEGIN PROPOSED CHARTER === > > > > DMARC Charter [DRAFT] > > > > The DMARC working group was chartered in 2014 to produce a Standards > Track revision to DMARC (RFC 7489), originally published via the > Independent Submissions stream. The revision to the original document, > along with one of two reporting documents, was approved by the IESG in > 2025, and the working group closed shortly thereafter. > > > > This closure left behind a second reporting document which, incomplete, > reverted to being an individual submission. There is little evidence of > uptake of this work in industry. However, it was overlooked that the base > document produced by the working group includes normative references to > this document, an artifact of the original DMARC RFC. This issue needs to > be resolved before the revised base document can proceed to publication. > There now appears to be consensus to recharter in order to “un-abandon” the > dangling document and complete the work. > > > > This instance of the DMARC working group is chartered for the sole > purpose of completing the “failure reporting” document and sending it to > the IESG for publication as a Standards Track item, or removing failure > reporting from DMARC in its entirety. This will complete the document > cluster and allow the base document to proceed. The working group will > adopt no other documents or work items. However, the working group may > reclaim the base document from the RFC Editor only if it finds that edits > are required to complete this charter item, and then may alter it only to > the extent necessary to meet this goal. The responsible Area Director will > have discretion regarding whether a full Last Call and IESG loop is needed > to review those limited modifications. > > > > The working group will submit the failure reporting document to the IESG > no later than six months from formation of the working group. If it fails > to meet this deadline, it will abandon that objective and instead begin the > work of removing all references from the base document to the failure > reporting document, and the latter will be permanently abandoned. > > > > === END === > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
