# Internet AD comments for charter-ietf-dmarc-02-00
CC @ekline

* comment syntax:
  - https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md

## Comments

* "There now appears to be consensus to recharter in order to “un-abandon”
   the dangling document and complete the work."

  If/when approved, this sentence won't make much sense. It was useful for
  background (thank you), but can probably deleted from subsequent revisions.

unusual charter description, but it is clearly scoped in time and purpose and hence no objection

I found some portions of this charter text odd. I understand the peculiar situation here but still have some concerns and suggestions to address them.

1) The document in question does seem to have a nice/clear short title - DMARC Failure Reporting document. Can this name/term be used consistently to refer to it throughout the charter text rather than referring to it with names such as "dangling"?

2) How about something like below to not use this "un-abandon" term and instead something more positive?
CURRENT
There now appears to be consensus to recharter in order to “un-abandon” the dangling document and complete the work.

SUGGEST
There now appears to be consensus to restart the WG in order to adopt the DMARC Failure Reporting document and complete the work for its publication as an IETF Standard.


3) I find the use of "instance" very odd. Why is it necessary given that the history of WG charters is always archived. Do we want to setup a precedent of multi-instance WGs ? IOW, what is lost if we just remove "This instance of" from that sentence? Also, I believe we do have the option of "restarting" WGs for specific purposes after they have concluded previous work - so, we should just say "restart" (or something like that).

4) I don't find the below sentence as being necessary in the charter since it is about document processing and the IESG are not bound by WG charters as far as this process is concerned. What, if anything, is lost if this sentence is taken away?

CURRENT
The responsible Area Director will have discretion regarding whether a full Last Call and IESG loop is needed to review those limited modifications.

Please find some comments below:

# I guess this will be deleted from the version to be sent for external review:

CURRENT:
  DMARC Charter [DRAFT]

# Not sure which "consensus" we are talking about here. I think that we can simply delete this sentence:

CURRENT:
   There now appears to be consensus to recharter
   in order to “un-abandon” the dangling document and complete the work.

# An instance of a WG: what does that mean?

CURRENT:
  This instance of the DMARC working group 

# Business as usual

CURRENT:
  The responsible Area
  Director will have discretion regarding whether a full Last Call and
  IESG loop is needed to review those limited modifications.

Not sure we need to have in this in the charter. "normal" process will be followed for these matters, IMO.

# Should we include a formal milestone for this check?

CURRENT:
  If it fails to meet this deadline or reaches consensus to cease work
  on the document, it will abandon that objective and instead begin the
  work of removing all references from the base document to the failure
  reporting document, and the latter will be permanently abandoned.

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

** Per:
“However, the working group may
reclaim the base document from the RFC Editor only if”

(Editorial) Shouldn’t this sentence be written without “only” – “However, the working group, with AD concurrence, may reclaim the base document from the RFC Editor if …”

(Process point) Added the words about the AD because technically, the WG can’t pull the document back themselves.

** Per:
“The responsible Area
Director will have discretion regarding whether a full Last Call and
IESG loop is needed to review those limited modifications.”

Why is this sentence needed?  The process described is always the case.

Thanks for addressing my previous BLOCK comments.