On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 11:49 AM Daniel K. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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 think upthread this was already answered. Basically, option 1 is the most work because it requires establishing a venue to complete the task so there's unknown editing volume and a large amount of organizational overhead, option 2 requires leaving a pointer back to RFC 7489 for operators that still want to do these reports that would be not officially supported on the standards track, and option 3 requires editing out all references to failure reporting (there were ~60 as I recall). I would argue that the amount of work of 3 is probably a little bigger than for 2, but I could be wrong about that. 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. > My recollection is that we started tossing around the idea of dropping it around the time of this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ul1jf_q_aULEaNMDf6eoF3uFG-c/ In the last few years, there's been nearly zero work put into developing that document. The authors occasionally updated it, but in at least one spot a new version was posted mainly just to reset the six month expiration clock on the draft. I would say the WG (as a whole) lost interest in working on it. It's possible we never actually decided formally to drop it, but in any event, it was pretty clear to me as the Area Director at the time that we no longer had the energy to do more. I don't know what we think is different today. > 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. > In the absence of a working group, an Area Director has to judge consensus. After that, we go through the motions of doing whatever that consensus is. The revised -bis document then replaces the one that's there. It's up to that AD whether a supplementary Last Call is issued just to affirm consensus, and whether the IESG as a whole has another look at it. There is something I do not understand here. > > Am I just worrying too much? > They're legitimate questions. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
