On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 2:20 PM Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
> My concern with this charter/working group is twofold: > a) that it leaves option (3) off the table as a resolution for the new > working group, unless the working group abandons the document or rewrites > it entirely to accomplish the same, and > b) that a narrowly focused working group will have a small mass of > participants who want this and will publish something, when a significant > portion of the broader working group have deep reservations about > progressing this or its final form. > But it says: "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." The "or" clause leaves open the idea of it making a consensus choice to go for option 3 from the start. OLD: > > 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. > > NEW: > > 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 *or reaches consensus to cease work on the document*, > 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. > I think this is unnecessary given the above, but harmless. -MSK >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
