Re: [dmarc-ietf] Joel Jaeggli's No Objection on charter-ietf-dmarc-00-00: (with COMMENT)

[Pete Resnick]

On 7/10/14 12:36 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

--
COMMENT:
--

   

The existing base specification is being submitted as an Independent
  Submission to become an Informational RFC.
 

This implies the action is in the present when in fact the submission
already occured and in the future still will have.

"The existing base specification (draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base) was
submitted as a draft Independent Submission."

I think summarizes what happened.
   


I can adjust the verb tense in the sentence when I get to other nits. I 
think I prefer "present perfect" for this particular one. :-)


pr

--
Pete Resnick
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

[dmarc-ietf] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on charter-ietf-dmarc-00-00: (with COMMENT)

[Stephen Farrell]

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
charter-ietf-dmarc-00-00: No Objection

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.)



The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dmarc/



--
COMMENT:
--


I think the intent here is that the base spec could be updated
or obsoleted by the WG if there's a real need to do that. Given 
the history, it could be useful to find a way to say that that 
might happen, while still including the "seek to preserve" etc 
language which is good. But I'm ok with this as-is if such a 
change might re-open a rathole discussion.


___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc