(Putting Murray on explicit CC to alert him to the openarc points.) > AFAIK, Steve Jones has been in touch with the hackathon > organizers to have ARC added to the slate. Both Steve and I will be coming > to Prague and several others from the group are expected as well.
There is an ARC project listed in the Hackathon wiki <https://www.ietf.org/registration/MeetingWiki/wiki/99hackathon>, with Steve listed as the project champion. But neither Steve nor Kurt are registered for the Hackathon, and neither is anyone else claiming "ARC" as a project they're interested in. Will openarc be part of the Hackathon ARC project? Anyone who wants to work on this at the Hackathon, please register (free) for the hackathon <https://www.ietf.org/registration/ietf99/hackathonregistration.py>... sooner is better, so we can track who's participating. > From my POV, the ARC spec is close to "done". There are a few details that > are turning up from new sets of eyes looking at it as implementations are > built but so far, nothing substantive. I'll have new versions after my > flights at the end of the week (protocol & usage). If there *are* substantive issues that need discussion, please collect them and post them here so we can make up an agenda. > To me, the biggest point of discussion has to do with the hypothetical next > milestone for the group which is currently called out as "document[ing] > operational practices..." (the _Draft Guide on DMARC Usage_). While I > understand that was viewed as "something that we could do" when the group > was chartered, I doubt the need for it as an IETF document as time has > passed. I think that discussing the next steps of the group would be apropos > in a F2F meeting. This seems like fodder for a short meeting -- 30 minutes, rather than even one hour. I'm happy to request only a 30-minute slot, but let's see what we really need. And keep in mind that even if we need to discuss the next steps, we haven't done that on the list yet, so we don't know that we need face time for it. For example, do we need time to bat around possible issues with ARC that could cause deployment concerns (will senders who want DMARC protection be willing to allow mailing lists to take that over with ARC?) or deployment problems that might be different from, but as severe as, the ones DMARC caused? Or are those issues settled to the point where there's not a need to discuss them? Is the openarc project in a state where it would be useful to discuss it? Peter Goldstein's note asking for a meeting in Prague brought up the "next steps" discussion and also noted that it would be useful to have contact between the DMARC people and the DCRUP people. I'll note that DCRUP will have a session in Prague whether or not we do, and the crypto issues are probably better discussed there than here for now. Fallout from it that affects ARC will have to be dealt with after that. Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
