Dave Crocker reminded me that we were going to adopt this document as Experimental. I was remiss in not mentioning that.
Even though the WG adopted this document, it was said during the call that the WG may not be able to come to a consensus to move the document forward. Adoption does not mean published (see: ARC Usage). tim On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:01 AM Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > All > > This call for adoption ended a few weeks ago, I have been recalcitrant in > following up. The chairs feel > there is enough consensus to adopt this work in DMARC. While there were > issues raised, the chairs feel > they can be addressed through the document process. > > thanks > tim > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:00 AM Hector Santos <hsantos= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 8/21/2020 3:09 PM, Jim Fenton wrote: >> >> > On 8/15/20 3:53 PM, John Levine wrote: >> >> Assurances that are provided by ADSP are generally obtained out of >> band in the >> >> real Internet, and not through ADSP. Current deployment of ADSP is not >> >> recommended. >> >> > Is that not exactly the same situation with DMARC, except that the >> > policy in question now is "reject" rather than "discardable"? Yes, >> > it's just a keyword, but it reflects the semantics of the expected >> > action as well. >> > >> > -Jim >> >> No one was expected to follow a reject, so it was said, until it did >> happen. SPF pushed >> >> -- >> Hector Santos, >> https://secure.santronics.com >> https://twitter.com/hectorsantos >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >> >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
