Shepherd writeup
rfc7960-18

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
    Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
    
Informational.

    Why is this the proper type of RFC?

This document discusses interoperability considerations for the DMARC protocol.
It does not specify any sort of  standard and while it does describe various
mitigation strategies for DMARC interoperability problems, it carefully
avoids labeling them as best practices.

    Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header?

Yes.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
    Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can
    be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
    announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

   DMARC introduces a mechanism for expressing domain-level policies and
   preferences for email message validation, disposition, and reporting.
   The DMARC mechanism can encounter interoperability issues when
   messages do not flow directly from the author's administrative domain
   to the final recipients.  Collectively these email flows are referred
   to as indirect email flows.  This document describes interoperability
   issues between DMARC and indirect email flows.  Possible methods for
   addressing interoperability issues are presented.

Working Group Summary:

   This document was initially posted on January 29, 2015. The WGLC began
   September 30, 2015, with no substantive comments being made during the
   last call period.

Document Quality:

   This is an informational specification; it does not specify a standard
   or best practices.

Personnel:

   Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> is acting as the Document Shepherd. The
   responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>.

(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
    Document Shepherd. 
    
The entire document was carefully reviewed. A number of issues were found,
most of which are editorial in nature. The resulting issues list was posted
to the WG list, leading to the -15 revision.

(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
    the reviews that have been performed?

No.

(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
   perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
   internationalization? 

No.

(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
    with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG
    should be aware of?
    
The usual concern with informational documents is particularly acute here:
The possibility that people will, because it's an RFC, treat it as a standard,
or worse, a list of best practices. It may be appropriate to insert
additional warnings about this given this document's description of various
techniques that are decidedly not best practices.

(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures 
    required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
    already been filed.

   Franck Martin - fmartin@linkedin.com - confirmed
   Eliot Lear - lear@cisco.com - confirmed
   Tim Draegen - tim@dmarcian.com - confirmed
   Elizabeth Zwicky - zwicky@yahoo-inc.com - confirmed
   Kurt Andersen - kandersen@linkedin.com - confirmed

(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?

No.

(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document?

It's fairly solid.

(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?

No.

(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
    (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
    
There's nit about one of the IP addresses possibly being in the wrong format;
These were fixed in -16.

(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
     as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

N/A.

(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
     normative or informative?

Yes.

(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
     advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
     
N/A.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?

N/A.

(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?

No.

(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
     especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
     
This document has no IANA considerations and the section is marked to be
removed prior to publication.

(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
   allocations.
   
N/A.

(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
     to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such
     as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
     
There is no use of ABNF, MIBs, XML, or anything similar in this document.

The two sample mail messages in Appendix A were run through the message lint
utility. The results of that run were included in the document shepherd
review which led to revision -15.

Back