IETF conflict review for draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base
conflict-review-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Ted Lemon)
No Record
(Richard Barnes)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-01-05)
Unknown
Adding to Pete's comment: not only is it OK in this case for an ISE document to ask the IESG to appoint DEs, but it's in fact necessary to the work in the DMARC working group.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-01-05)
Unknown
This document has been discussed on the DMARC WG mailing list. Several comments have been sent, leading to updates to the document, but nobody has expressed any concern about a conflict between this work and the work of the WG. Indeed, this document's publication as an Independent Submission is anticipated in the WG charter and will provide a basis for some of the work to be undertaken. This document does introduce some new IANA registries with Designated Experts, and the appointment of the DEs will fall to the IESG, but we've done this in the past. I see no conflicts.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-01-06)
Unknown
I offer a couple of comments that I hope the ISE and authors might find useful. Other than these couple of things, this is a fine document. And even with this issues, I don't think there is any conflict with publishing this. - 2.3 says: "Although DMARC does not introduce third parties to the email handling flow, it also does not preclude them. Third parties are free to provide services in conjunction with DMARC." Given the fiasco with mailing lists, I think that the text is not factually correct. - 9.5 I expected this to be much more prominent. I think it'd be useful were that the case as folks may first hear about dmarc because of the list breakage thing and only telling them about that on p41, and then without very much text at all isn't great. For example while rfc6377 does explain how adsp discardable can get you bounced from a list, I think this draft should also, at the very least via a direct reference to that section of 6377. I can understand that it isn’t easy to know what to say about that, but the text describing that ought not be sort of in an implicit out of the way corner as is currently the case;-)
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
(was Abstain)
No Record
No Record
(2015-01-08)
Unknown