On 05/10/2016 10:23, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Tim Draegen <[email protected] > <mailto:[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. >
+1 I'd like to reinforce this call. ARC has great promise, but we're just completing and testing initial implementations. There are frequent discussions of specification changes (on arc-discuss and elsewhere), which shows that there's substantive work to be done - and that work can only benefit from the broader community that an IETF WG represents. --Steve. Steven M Jones DMARC.org e: [email protected], [email protected]
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
