On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 5:58 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> The working group should, in the short term, focus on development and > completion of draft-ietf-dmarc-psd. Among the questions to be answered is > its urgency: If there is pressure to get this finished and published in > some form, we suggest the WG consider moving this to Experimental status, > aligning it with the ARC base work, and come back around to merge it into > DMARC when it goes to the Standards Track. > +1. This draft addresses several clear use cases and is critical to standards track DMARC. > Previously (at IETF 99), the WG has discussed an augmentation of DMARC's > reporting capabilities to include attributes of ARC evaluation of a > message. It's been suggested that this is a critical thing to include in > the ARC experiment and thus input to standards track DMARC work; it was > left out of ARC's base document to keep ARC decoupled from DMARC for now. > If consensus concurs with this position, we're looking for document > editor(s) to spin up that effort. The chairs are, however, cognizant that > each new work item we take up has the effect of pushing standards track > DMARC further down the road, so we would like to keep this sort of thing to > a minimum. > +1. At IETF99 I signed up to be the author of this. I'm still happy to do this work, and believe it's critical a) for the success of ARC, and b) for standards track DMARC. Seth
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
