On Sat 21/Jun/2014 13:16:04 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 6/20/2014 11:23 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
>> Dave Crocker writes:
>>> The existing base specification is being submitted as an Independent
>>> Submission to become an Informational RFC.
>>
>> [...]
>>> 2. Intra-Specification -- Audit each part of the DMARC
>>> specification (reporting, policy, auth), making improvements as
>>> appropriate.
>>
>> This last role seems to conflict with "Independent Submission".
>> "Suggesting improvements" would be better?
>
> Hmmm. Interesting challenge in writing.
>
> What the text means to impart is that it is possible to make changes to
> the base specification, for publication as a new version of the
> specification. So, the current version goes as an Independent
> submissions, and a new one would go as a working group document.
That reminds the 4870/4871 split. Its usefulness may not be obvious
to all, so some explanation might help.
For the problem at hand, it is not clear how the WG is going to
operate about the "choices", such as:
- A form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit
through intermediaries.
Can the WG propose solutions that modify DKIM or is that out of scope?
For example, something like the following I-D could be part of a
solution. Would the proposed charter allow it?
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vesely-smooth-canon/
Ale
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
