On 3/31/25 18:22, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:06 AM Daniel K. <[email protected]> wrote: > I think a common notion is that when a document moves up in status (this > one is going from Independent Stream Informational to IETF Stream Proposed > Standard), we are expected to drop things that are not in use. There's a > lot of argument being presented here that failure reports are generated by > almost nobody. Deciding whether to drop them seems on target to me.
I get that, and I note that the few reports that I have received have been mostly useless. >> For these reasons, I believe submitting failure reporting for review >> would be the path of least resistance going forward to deprecate RFC >> 7489, and publishing this trio of documents as its successor >> specifications. > > The problem is that there's no longer a working group. We might blame me > for that; it sure seemed to me like the WG that existed was out of energy > and going in circles, and so I pressed it to get done by a deadline. > > Failure reporting, if we do want it, now needs a venue, the options being > (a) reopen the WG, (b) get an AD to sponsor it (I wouldn't), or (c) publish > it via the ISE (outside of the IETF). None of those involve "least > resistance" to me. The minimal effort lies in what were presented as > options 2 and 3. You did not answer my concerns wrt. the necessary document changes if chosing 2 or 3, and how that would impact WG consensus. > I'm relatively certain that if we do decide to reopen the WG to answer this > question and do the work, we're going to need new chairs and a very tight > new charter with some solid milestones and some serious commitment from the > advocates that want to see the work done. Since I joined, I do not remember any, "we'll likely abandon failure reporting" statements being made. Neither did anyone tell me not to bother when working on that document and sending pull requests. I'm a bit surprised, but I'll get over it. Option 2 seems particularly bad in the face of this almost ready document we have to replace it. I might consider 3 as the way forward, but I don't see how the necessary adjustments to the two existing documents can be worked on if the WG is closed. There is something I do not understand here. Am I just worrying too much? Daniel K. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
