On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've come to believe that it makes more sense, at this stage, to seek a > status of Experimental. That's not meant as a criticism of the work, but > rather to accurately reflect the current understanding of ARC dynamics. > > Having intermediaries signing thing and having receivers base delivery and > labeling decisions on those signatures is new and, I think, significantly > different that doing that for SPF or DKIM. Who should sign and when isn't > yet well understood. How those signatures should get evaluated by > receiving filtering engines also is not yet well-understood. > I think at the time DKIM went to Proposed Standard, one could've made the same argument about it as well, especially on your last two points. On the other hand, DKIM back then had way more investment of person-hours on implementations and WG list participation than DMARC and ARC do now, so I had a lot more confidence in the final product. I also think there's enough in flux about the current base document for ARC that I would argue pretty hard for Experimental if we were pressed to publish sooner. It doesn't feel "done" to me. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
