On 7/16/2014 5:20 PM, S Moonesamy wrote: >> The draft charter text only notes the fact of submission and says >> nothing about the further processing that has, might or will take place. >> The IESG assessment is part of the 'will'. > > I'll quote from > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg13031.html > > "Existing deployment of DMARC has demonstrated utility at internet > scale" > > If I am not mistaken implementers are encouraged to request IETF > protocol parameters assignments before deploying them at internet > scale. In my opinion an IESG assessment would be useful as the IESG is > chartering a working group about DMARC. I am taking a previous (IESG) > conflict review into consideration > (conflict-review-masotta-tftpexts-windowsize-opt). SM, Unfortunately I think I'm more confused now. The existing draft has been submitted independently. As such it is not part of the working group chartering process. Any IESG activity, with regards to the independent submission, is independent of this wg draft charter. The independent submission is mentioned in the draft charter only as some convenient background. With respect to protocol parameter assignments, you appear to be suggesting that something is or has been problematic, but I can't tell what it is. In any event, are there changes to the draft charter that you are suggesting? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net