I agree with this. If there's stable documentation on DMARC usage that we can cite, there's little value in adding our own, which is likely to end up diverging from the others.
Does anyone think we *should* proceed with writing this? Barry On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 9:32 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote: > For the sake of discussion: > > I'd like to suggest that writing a DMARC usage guide under a BCP sort of > moniker is not a useful activity for this WG. There are lots of white papers > and other "how to use DMARC" guides available on the internet. What value > would it add to have something preserved in the perpetuity of IETF archives > that repeats what is already available? > > We've written the interoperability review, we've seen the development of the > ARC spec to address a large portion of those interoperability problems and > we're on the verge of having ARC available for wide deployment and > implementation. I'm not sure that we can make useful conclusions about how > the state of email usage will be affected until there has been some time for > the protocol to bake in. > > --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
