IETF conflict review for draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base
conflict-review-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-11

The IESG has completed a review of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-11
consistent with RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Domain-based Message
Authentication, Reporting and Conformance (DMARC)'
as an Informational RFC.


The IESG has concluded that this work is related to IETF work done in the
DMARC WG, but this relationship does not prevent publishing.

The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they
merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the
ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-kucherawy-dmarc-base/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base/

The process for such documents is described at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot comment]

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;-)

[Ballot comment]
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.

[Ballot comment]
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.