On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote:
> If I missed this, I apologize, but would it be possible to post a message >> which summarizes the nature/goals of the changes that are planned? >> >> I'm not challenging the work, but just wanting to make sure the wg is in >> synch about how the doc should be adjusted. >> >> Thanks. >> > > The intent is outlined in high level within the -10 version (section 5.2) > of the protocol doc. The better explanation is in Seth's email from > September (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ > xUUbT15vqoBmH7RraJ_pesrd9z0): > > So to be really specific, those are the implications for the ARC draft post-7601bis, not the initial intent for 7601bis itself (which is tied closely, but distinct). The ARC impetus for an update to 7601 was twofold: 1) To allow for ARC information to be encoded in the A-R in a way that is allowed in the registry a) to keep the AAR definition crisp b) to avoid hacks like a header.ds tuple c) to allow all the information needed for a DMARC report to be properly stamped without resorting to shenanigans or a 4th header 2) To allow for authres ABNF to be inheritable Seth
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
