Hi Dave,
At 17:32 16-07-2014, Dave Crocker wrote:
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?
In my opinion the existing specification cannot be published through
the Independent Stream because of the IANA Considerations section,
i.e. it has to be sent to the IESG. The Application Area Directors
will have to decide what to do about the "Email Authentication
Parameters" assignments as conflict of interest can be raised as an issue.
The proposed charter states that DMARC has been deployed. The
(proposed) working group discussions will have to take that into
account and also refer to a DMARC specification as it is not being
asked to design a protocol to solve one or more problems. The
(proposed) working group reviews the DMARC specification and finds
out that the assignments have not been done. The easy path would be
to fix the IANA stuff and move forward. Given that this is an
email-related working group there is bound to be strong
disagreement. Process issues could be raised; I am not inferring
that it is bad. This is where one looks into whether there has been
any arbitrary decision.
"Protocol parameter assignments" is about IETF policy; it is not
DMARC specific. It is related to the discussion on an IAB mailing
list. It can impact on future IESG decisions.
To be clear, I am not suggesting any text changes to the draft
charter. I commented as it looks like a matter for the IESG to consider.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy