Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 15:09:00 -0800

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis-04: Discuss

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.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-rfc7601bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is mainly a process discuss. I share Alvaro's concern about this being
marked as "updating" RFC7601, when it seem like a full replacement. I'm
promoting it to a DISCUSS because I think this needs to be resolved before
publication.

The current structure will make it very difficult for readers to figure out
which parts of each doc they need to worry about. I think it needs to either go
back to "obsoleting" 7601, or it needs to be recast to just talk about the
changes. Note that if the former path is chosen, the IANA considerations in
7601 will need to be copied forward.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I mostly just reviewed the diff. Thank you for mostly avoiding unnecessary
changes. That makes the diff tools much more useful than they are for bis
drafts that make wholesale organization and stylistic changes.

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 16:39:33 -0500

I actually agree with this: I think the better answer is to go back to
"obsoletes" and to have this document include the details of what was
put in the registries before.  But the working group decided to do it
the other way, and there's been criticism in the past of ADs (and, so,
by extension, chairs) picking on this sort of stuff, so I decided to
let it go.  I'll let the IESG sort this one out, but I'll go on record
as saying what I think the better way to handle it is.

That said, I don't think it's a huge deal either way.

Barry

-- 
Barry
--
Barry Leiba  ([email-masked])
http://internetmessagingtechnology.org/

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 19:00:17 +0000

Hi all,

> as saying what I think the better way to handle it is.

I think incorporating older registrations is the cleaner way of dealing with Ben's & Benjamin's DISCUSSes, as then the document is self contained and there is no need for readers to see obsoleted RFCs. So this would be my preference.

If the WG doesn't want to do this, then the document needs editing to be correct as per Benjamin's DISCUSS.

Best Regards,
Alexey

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 11:31:12 -0800

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 11:00 AM Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> > put in the registries before.
>
> I think incorporating older registrations is the cleaner way of dealing
> with Ben's & Benjamin's DISCUSSes, as then the document is self contained
> and there is no need for readers to see obsoleted RFCs. So this would be my
> preference.
>

>From a committee POV, I have no objection. I think that the current
arrangement was preferred by the author.

--Kurt

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:54:04 -0500

Murray, would you please copy the relevant IANA Considerations
sections from RFC 7601 into 7601bis and change the tenses
appropriately (perhaps just with a sentence in each subsection that
says, "The following was done in the previous edition of this
document, RFC 7601:", or some such), and then let's have a quick
working group review of the result?  (And, of course, change it back
to "obsoletes" rather than "updates".)

As it's editorial, I'm sure we don't need to go back through any
approval process, and we can get the DISCUSS cleared and move forward.

Thanks,
Barry

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 15:02:31 -0600

In case it’s not obvious, that would be sufficient for me to clear.

Thanks!

Ben.

> On Nov 30, 2018, at 2:54 PM, Barry Leiba <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:31:25 +0000

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018, at 8:54 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> document, RFC 7601:", or some such

Even better if you say something like "the following is unchanged from RFC 7601:".

>), and then let's have a quick

I agree. I think this is purely editorial, albeit an important issue for the final document.