Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance
charter-ietf-dmarc-02
Yes
(Alissa Cooper)
(Barry Leiba)
(Pete Resnick)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alia Atlas)
(Jari Arkko)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)
(Spencer Dawkins)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review?"
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-07-10 for -00-00)
Unknown
About time! :)
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-07-08 for -00-00)
Unknown
So who is the responsible AD?
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-07-09 for -00-00)
Unknown
> The existing base specification is being submitted as an Independent > Submission to become an Informational RFC. This implies the action is in the present when in fact the submission already occured and in the future still will have. "The existing base specification (draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base) was submitted as a draft Independent Submission." I think summarizes what happened.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
(was Block)
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -00-00)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-07-10 for -00-00)
Unknown
I think the intent here is that the base spec could be updated or obsoleted by the WG if there's a real need to do that. Given the history, it could be useful to find a way to say that that might happen, while still including the "seek to preserve" etc language which is good. But I'm ok with this as-is if such a change might re-open a rathole discussion.