I'm beginning a new thread to explicitly address some differences of opinion in the working group.
Coming out of IETF99 and surrounding working group conversations ( https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5_OP8lVi-a3yHMS0hqs1clyLWj4, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/4Gu1EErK4iuo9pQnZ-uJ2tKpMDQ, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/X-3nVPUQgIy-AGt4tJfkbPZZTjI), I was under the impression that working group consensus was that ARC would be submitted as an Experimental draft. I know Kurt has very strong opinions that we NOT proceed as Experimental, and I wanted to make sure he got to state his case. That said, regardless of outcome, I think the Experimental Considerations belongs in the primary draft and not the usage guide. When reading the draft, it is unclear why certain decisions were made or what their impact will be (and there are several questions that any savvy reader will immediately have), and this section makes these clear to a first time reader. So: 1) Unless a chair speaks up that consensus is already Experimental, we should have the conversation now and nail this down. 2) Unless there is opposition, I'd like to move the Experimental Considerations out of the usage guide into the primary draft. We can easily revisit how the section is titled if the outcome of #1 here changes anything. Seth
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
