On October 25, 2023 3:38:01 AM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> 
wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 11:15 AM Barry Leiba <[email protected]>
>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.

I haven't seen any valid case for it yet.  It adds complexity to little or no 
benefit.  Although sometimes it seems like complexity for complexities' sake is 
the IETF's stoke and trade, I believe we ought to try and avoid adding any more 
than we have to in order to meet our chartered mandate.


>* 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."

ARC solves nothing on its own.  ARC plus a list of senders I trust not to lie 
to me is quite useful.  I don't think it can be raised to a more formal part of 
DMARC since its utility if entirely dependent on non-standardized (and almost 
certainly non-standardizable) special sauce.


>* 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

I don't think a meeting would help with either of those.

Scott K

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to