On 8/30/14 12:52 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Pete Resnick writes:
Good point:
Mar 2015 Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better
support indirect email flows
Up to this point the discussion on the dmarc mailing list has focused
on alternative channels (Otis's TPA-labels, Kucherawy-Crocker's
DKIM-Delegate) for communicating authorization, not changes to DMARC.
Given that *all* of these specifications focus on authorization rather
than denial with the single exception of DMARC's p=reject/quarantine,
it's not obvious to me that improvements to DMARC are needed/feasible
beyond acknowledging existence of other authorization protocols to
which recipient policy may give precedence.
How about s/DMARC improvements/protocol improvements/ ? If necessary,
a nod to "including changes to DMARC" could be added.
While I agree in principle, this is a distinction that is likely to be
lost on people outside of the WG. "DMARC improvements" in the charter
was meant to encompass possible changes to the DMARC spec, deletions
from the DMARC spec, and additions to the DMARC spec (e.g., extra header
fields in the message meant to indicate to implementations to do
something different than the current DMARC spec says to do). I think
most folks would understand all of those to be "DMARC improvements",
whether or not they actually call out a change in the base spec.
We in the WG understand what we mean, and we can certainly be clear
about it in the wiki. But I see no need for a change to the milestone text.
pr
--
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
