Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Subject: Call for Adoption: DMARC-bis

From: Tim Wicinski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:58:50 -0400

All

While the chairs are aware that working on DMARC-bis is the charter of the
working group, we want to ensure the process is followed.

This starts a Call for Adoption for: DMARC-bis

We'll be starting with the text from the RFC 7489.
This is available here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-dmarcbis/

Changes made so far have been to include the current Errata.

Please review this draft, and we are looking for *objections to adoption*,
and send comments to the list stating your objections.  The working group
can pick over the document after adoption.

Also, the Chairs have announced that the document will be split into
multiple pieces. The details around this split will be sent out shortly in
a separate email.

Since this bis project is the group’s currently chartered phase of work,
the chairs believe one week is sufficient time for objections. This call
for adoption ends: November 2nd, 2020, at 5pm PST.

Thanks,

tim
(for Alexey/Seth)

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2020 17:33:04 -0700

> can pick over the document after adoption.

No objection to adopting this draft.

--Kurt

---

From: Steven M Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:52:14 -0700

> This starts a Call for Adoption for: DMARC-bis

I support adoption of the DMARCbis draft as a working group document.

(I realize you asked for objections, but you need some record of support
to proceed, don't you?)

--S.

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 09:17:25 +0100

On Mon 26/Oct/2020 22:58:50 +0100 Tim Wicinski wrote:
> Please review this draft, and we are looking for *objections to adoption*, and 
> send comments to the list stating your objections.  The working group can pick 
> over the document after adoption.
> 
> Also, the Chairs have announced that the document will be split into multiple 
> pieces. The details around this split will be sent out shortly in a separate email.

I don't think there is going to be much use of the document after the split.

Perhaps, it's more efficient to split the document first, so as to let the WG 
review documents which are more or less in their final shape.  Adopting and 
discussing a document that is not going to be published as RFC seems rather 
tortuous.

I'm not objecting, I'm just confused.

Best
Ale
--