How long do we think we need for this discussion? b
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote: > (Reposting with adjusted subject) > > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Barry et al, >> >> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:14 AM, Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> The current spec defines an arc authres method >>> (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-03#section-8.1). >>> >>> We believe there should also be registered ptypes and properties, that >>> should be stamped (but are not required, as they won't always be available). >>> >>> As long as AR stamping happens at the end of chain validation, when an >>> ARC set gets created this stamp will be included in the AAR, and AAR >>> construction can be clean with no additional language or requirements >>> necessary in the spec. >> >> >> This area seems like something that would be productively explored in a >> F2F since it is pretty undefined right now and there are some divergent >> opinions kicking around... (see the thread with Brandon and Scott so far) >> >> --Kurt > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
