On 10/24/24 8:16 PM, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Murray S. Kucherawy writes:
And whatever deficiencies people see in ARC, it is a protocol-based
response.
We have made no statement that ARC even works, much less that it solves the
stated problem. Our story is incomplete.
I think ARC works, but what is missing from the RFC is the description
how...
Arguably the specification RFC isn't the right place to go into depth on
how the ecosystem would use the protocol. But it's common to have
companion Informational documents that go into considerable detail.
In fact we had developed an ARC usage guide as a WG document. The focus
up to that point was on providing information and guidance for
organizations implementing or deploying ARC, not really what might be
done at the MUA level.
The ARC usage guide was officially Parked based on a discussion the
chairs held in Prague in early 2019, so that the WG would focus on
completing the PSD work as Experimental (RFC9091) and then get started
on DMARCbis. At that point I believe the ARC specification had been sent
to the RFC Editor for publication, which would happen a few months later.
Minor updates were made to ARC Usage to keep it current, because when it
was parked we were told we could resume work after DMARCbis was done.
That continued until the editors were directed to "let this draft
expire" by a chair in November 2020.
cf. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-usage/
--S.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
