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.
I'm in agreement with Pete. I also fail to see why people not familiar with the
group are going to spend time drawing conclusions from reading the milestones
in isolation, and in the unlikely event they do, why we should care.
Ned
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
