On 6 December 2011 21:38, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> For draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting: [...] > <co-chair> If the working group doesn’t wish to pursue this at all, > it can be returned to an individual submission for publication via > that route. </co-chair> It is rather strange to close a WG when an almost-ready I-D exists, a recent example was YAM and 5321bis. OTOH I'm not competent to say much about DKIM ARF, excluding editorial ABNF nits or similar issues. As long as Barry is willing to shepherd your DKIM I-D here go for it. > For draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting: When you asked who is willing to implement it, did you ever get a response`? Obviously Scott would, otherwise he wouldn't bother to specify it. For any SPF modifier there are general considerations: - If potential users already have the required info as part of an SPF policy in an DNS cache they don't need convoluted additional "discovery" or "query" procedures. That's good. - If potential policy publishers are already very near to practical EDNS0 limits adding more info could make it worse. - For new modifiers it should be clear that their introduction has no effect on existing old SPF policies without this new modifier. As soon as there is more than one RFC talking about "SPF modifiers" there should be a third RFC defining a registry for "SPF modifiers" before it gets out of hand. As far as MARF is concerned, could SPF and DKIM reporting also be merged, or would that upset parts of the intended audience? -Frank _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
