On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:15 PM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 1) It feels like a bit of a stretch to call ARC "a form of DKIM >> signature", so I have to assume ARC falls under the second bullet. >> > > You seem to have missed the second sub-bullet under Item 1: > I assure you I didn't. I even said, clearly I thought: "...so I have to assume ARC falls under the second bullet." > Collaborative or passive transitive mechanisms that enable an >> intermediary to participate in the trust sequence, propagating >> authentication directly or reporting its results. >> > > That exactly describes ARC. (Did I mention that that wasn't an accident?) > And I agree, but then I also mentioned that we're now operating under the second phase of the charter, or so the chairs seemed to indicate explicitly with their "phase 1 is done" message. This citation is in the first; the proscription against "additional mail authentication technologies" (which also, by the way, exactly describes ARC) that I'm worried about is in the second. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
