On Tuesday, May 12, 2015 12:16:19 AM Hector Santos wrote: > On 5/11/2015 10:17 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > > Scott Kitterman writes: > > > Actually, the idea behind MARID was to come up with a single > > > solution > > > > Is there something we can learn from MARID? I don't see it in the > > context of the current discussion, as MARID had little to say about > > third parties (it treated them as first parties, and handled third > > party issues by suggesting "certification registries"), and explicitly > > disclaimed authentication of authorship claims. > > MARID main trust was with SPF and CEP (Micrsoft's XML version of SPF > renamed to SenderID when it was changed to a SPF syntax), but the > MARID group was open to other proposals to compete with the SPF > solution. Those other proposals included: > > - Domainkeys that included a simple always/sometimes sign policy, > - DKIM, a better Domainkeys with extended third party policies, > - CSV/DNA, an SMTP EHLO level Reputation Method. > > These were the first introductions of the idea for Signature TRUST > MODEL and the chain of trust which eventually became the main focus in > the DKIM-WG working group. > > But the main focus in MARID was with the SPF idea and there was > outputs from MARID -- a direction to complete the four RFCs and to > treat them as experiments: > > RFC4405 SUBMITTER SMTP Service Extension > RFC4406 Sender ID: Authenticating E-Mail > RFC4407 Purported Responsible Address (PRA) > RFC4408 Sender Policy Framework (SPF)
Don't take my word for it. Here's the list of active/published documents for MARID: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/marid/documents/ [Note to save everyone time, none are listed] As indicated when the working group closed [1] none of the follow-on experimental documents were products of the working group, in fact, deviations from what the working group had agreed on were the source of one appeal. [1] http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg05054.html Going back and trying to justify things in this working group based on a revisionist history of a decade old failed working group isn't going to get us anywhere. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
