Updated the subject line to start a new thread. . .sorry for the confusion.
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Tim Draegen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The WG will now move ahead to phase 2: >> >> https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/MilestoneTwoWiki >> >> When discussing methods and techniques that address an interoperability >> issue, please explicitly reference the issue from the >> draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability draft. This will allow for easier >> tracking of issues & proposed fixes by volunteers a lot easier. >> > > I would like to officially propose, and ask for the WG's support of > adopting https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andersen-arc/ and the > corresponding, but separate usage recommendations > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jones-arc-usage/ as > standards-track documents within the WG to help mitigate the > interoperability problems that were cataloged. > > Specifically, in draft -09 of the interop document, I had cited ARC in > section 4.2 as an instance of a "[m]echanism[s] to extend > Authentication-Results [RFC7601] to multiple hops. . ." ( > https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-09#section-4.2) > but subsequently abstracted that "work in progress" out of the document to > honor our milestone framework. > > --Kurt Andersen >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
