On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 2:28 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 10:46 AM Douglas Foster < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I ask the chairs to formally endorse development of an alternative to ARC >> as an additional approach to the mailing list problem... >> > > So you are asking the WG to go back to our second milestone and put the > current work on milestone 3 on hold? > This thread is now extremely off topic. As Kurt rightly mentioned, addressing indirect mailflow was a WG milestone that has been completed. We are now in another phase of work -- driving DMARC to a standards track document -- which has open tickets and editors waiting on WG consensus. This conversation around indirect mail streams, which the chairs had hoped would run its own course, is now counter productive. The Chairs are officially calling discussion of indirect mail flows OFF TOPIC until all open bis tickets in trac are resolved. After all tickets are resolved, but prior to WGLC on the bis documents, we will return to a discussion of indirect mail flow and where ARC stands. For now, move on to open tickets. Seth, for the Chairs -- *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
