I’ll add my support to (1).
As do I. I would rather do this sooner than later because I also have run into people who wrongly believe that it's important for them to spend time and money adding ARC support to their code and I'd like to be able to tell them, no, save your effort for DKIM2.
R's, John
From: Seth Blank <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 1:47 PM To: Douglas Foster <[email protected]> Cc: Barry Leiba <[email protected]>; IETF DMARC WG <[email protected]>; Trent Adams <[email protected]> Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Re: Proposed Recharter to Conclude the ARC Experiment At this point, the charter is at its end. Personally, hearing from Richard and Bron (and some private messages directly to me), I'm more comfortable now moving ARC to obsolete/historic prior to a successor like DKIM2 being published. Really the question now seems to be about choosing one of three paths: 1. Take this document on now in a rechartered DMARC WG to conclude ARC. 2. Shutter DMARC WG as intended, and take on this document via AD sponsorship or some other more directed approach. 3. Let this document be published with DKIM2 as part of a cluster of documents concluding ARC are shifting to DKIM2 as explicit successor. So far, as Chair, I'm hearing several people ask for [1], and not much on [2] or [3].
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
