On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:15 AM Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote:
> Now that we have a consensus call on the main issue that has remained open: > > 1. Do we need to retain our session at IETF 118 and discuss this (or > something else) further? > > ...or... > > 2. Do we have what we need to finish up the DMARCbis document, and > should the chairs cancel the session at 118? > A few questions, but they don't demand in-person time if we want to just deal with them on the list: * Is there consensus on moving ahead with the idea of a way to indicate which authentication method(s) the Domain Owner wants Receivers to use? If so, it doesn't seem to be in the document yet. * Given some of the stuff we're hearing in the wings about the utility of ARC, do we want to talk about it in -bis at all? The original plan (I thought) was that if it turned out to be high signal, we could add it as a third supported method. I'm hearing positive value from a couple of operators, but nothing of the form "Yes, this solves the DMARC problem with lists." * Any open issues in the tracker that would benefit from face time? I'm happy to repeat my 117 rant at 118. I don't think much has changed since then, which makes some of those points more urgent... ;-) -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
