Todd Herr writes: > No consensus reached for proposed change. Closing. I do not think we can make standard track document which do not properly list mandatory to implement features, and give at least some recommendations to the optional features, and which hides the protocol feature requirements inside very hard to parse text (where different people have different understanding what the text is trying to say).
For example the sction 5.3.3 has text: 5.3.3. Determine If Authenticated Identifiers Exist For each Authentication Mechanism underlying DMARC, perform the required check to determine if an Authenticated Identifier (#authenticated-identifier) exists for the message if such check has not already been performed. . Which I interpreted that implementations need to loop through each authentication mechanism in DMARC (i.e., both SPF and DKIM), and perform the required checks (earlier versions of the draft did say that both SPF and DKIM MUST be done). Some other people say that no, there is no need to implement any authentication methods, and you can still be "implementing this standard". To make this really interoperable standard, we MUST have at least one MUST to implement authentication method, and we need to clearly express those requirements. -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
