On 05/17/2016 12:53, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > The charter enumerates three tracks, the first of which appears to allow > discussion of new protocols; in particular, one might argue that ARC is > a "form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit through > intermediaries". However, in the second track, it says "The working > group will not develop additional mail authentication technologies, but > may document authentication requirements that are desirable", and there > are chunks of ARC that are clearly new. (Having now implemented ARC, I > can attest that there was enough new code needed that I would call it > "new".)
Seems to me you've identified a contradiction in the charter, rather than an objection to developing ARC... > I have an unreleased implementation of that. It also more easily > qualifies under our charter, IMHO. I think we should at least allow > discussion of that one. Why wouldn't we discuss that, or other proposals? --S. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
