Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Document update

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 17:56:42 -0700

Hi all,

I'm planning to scrape this list for items that would be good to include in
a revision to the draft and post it prior to the cutoff.  I'll post again
when I have a diff available for review.

I'll reply to the list as I go through the feedback.

-MSK

---

From: Roland Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:31:31 +0800

Ah, this suggests an answer to a process question that I'd been meaning 
to ask: which cutoff? (More broadly, are the remaining steps documented 
somewhere?)

- Roland

On 10/16/2013 08:56 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm planning to scrape this list for items that would be good to 
> include in a revision to the draft and post it prior to the cutoff.  
> I'll post again when I have a diff available for review.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:44:00 +1300

> to ask: which cutoff? (More broadly, are the remaining steps documented

There is a formal 'sequence' for getting IETF approval and publication, 
but they don't have timing deadlines, except for getting comments in 
during a phase called Last Call, which will probably be a 4-week window, 
eventually.

At the moment, we are the pre-formal stage of getting the sponsoring 
Area Director to agree to do the sponsoring.  He's decided on an ad hoc 
requirement of some reviews, which I think we all agree is reasonable, 
for this case.

Other deadlines are merely related to the IETF meeting, in this case 
Vancouver shortly.  They lock-out new versions of internet-drafts for 
2-3 weeks, prior the meeting, with the idea of keeping the flood from 
hitting at the very last minute.

For DMARC, that deadline is only a matter of convenience.

d/
-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:45:56 -0700

Just to concur with Dave's points: We're not in any kind of formal process
at this stage.  There is a deadline to getting updates published prior to
the Vancouver meeting just so we are all reasonably sure we're all looking
at the same draft when we meet there.  It's this coming Monday.  On the
Monday of the conference (November 4th), the embargo is lifted, and normal
document evolution resumes.  That's the deadline to which I was referring.

-MSK

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Roland Turner <[email-masked]>wrote:

> I'm planning to scrape this list for items that would be good to include
> in a revision to the draft and post it prior to the cutoff.  I'll post
> again when I have a diff available for review.
>
> dmarc mailing [email-masked]://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>
>
>

---

From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 23:47:14 -0700

(oops, hit "Send" too soon)

> document evolution resumes.  That's the deadline to which I was referring.
I'm just using the Monday deadline as encouragement to take a revision pass
at the draft based on the feedback we have so far.  Feedback isn't by any
means closed after that.

-MSK

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 15:19:43 -0700

> I'll reply to the list as I go through the feedback.
I was wondering if there would be any discussion resulting from the
rather lengthy review I posted to the list. I did get a couple of nice
thank-you messages off-list, but it would be much more satisfying to see
some discussion of the issues.

-Jim