Are there any objections to recording consensus that [1], that the domain and selector of the key used to evaluate the DMARC status MUST be included, and [2] opening a ticket to discuss how appropriate keys should be determined?
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:20 AM Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:56 PM Seth Blank <seth= > [email protected]> wrote: > >> The original question in this thread had two parts: >> >> "Is it desirable to clarify this language, [1] such that it is clear >> which DKIM keys are required to include in a report, and [2] if so, how >> should the appropriate keys be determined?" >> >> I hear consensus on [1], that the domain and selector of the key used to >> evaluate the DMARC status MUST be included, but on [2] there is not yet >> clear consensus. >> >> Does anyone have thoughts on [2] beyond Ale's comments? Otherwise, we can >> separate the conversation on [2] and return to it later. >> > > Sounds like a good approach - I'd suggest forking [2] into a separate TRAC > issue and closing this one out with a pointer to the new "subissue". > > --Kurt > -- *Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies *e:* [email protected] *p:* 415.273.8818 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
