On 6/12/2020 8:02 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
On 6/12/20 10:49 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
About a year ago, I had suggested [1] that the reporting and policy
mechanisms of DMARC be split, and was, I think, the only one supporting
that idea.
Jim, I supported the proposal as well.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/s-UTti8Hlye6mYSMODDoYvfvKCs/
We even exchanged emails about it.
Although you have only had a preliminary discussion, do you have in mind
an editorial split (different functional pieces, but DMARC is still one
thing) or an actual split into separate specifications?
Someone (not sure who) said in yesterday's interim that DMARC could run
into trouble in IETF Last Call or in IESG review because of the breakage
to mailing lists, etc. If we had independent specifications, at least
the reporting pieces could proceed. So I (still) support the split.
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/HJwOvLspQKo-_GuW7W9xZPvv370/
+1, I also support the split. It worked with DKIM, separating your SSP
Policy as a proposed standard allowing us to move forward with
DKIM-base as a STD. Unfortunately, ADSP was never completed and dropped.
I see the following:
DMARC-Base proposed standard
DMARC-Reporting proposed standard
DMARC-TPA (Third Party Authorization) Experimental
Get it done.
--
Hector Santos,
https://secure.santronics.com
https://twitter.com/hectorsantos
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
