On 05/18/2016 01:23 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
> wrote:
And I agree, but then I also mentioned that we're now operating
under the second phase of the charter, or so the chairs
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> And I agree, but then I also mentioned that we're now operating under the
> second phase of the charter, or so the chairs seemed to indicate explicitly
> with their "phase 1 is done" message. This citation is in
On 5/17/2016 6:08 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:46 PM, Dave Crocker > wrote:
Relevant charter text:
The working group will explore possible updates and
extensions to the
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Steven M Jones wrote:
>
> Seems to me you've identified a contradiction in the charter, rather
> than an objection to developing ARC...
>
>
...and I thought that's how I'd characterized it. But if the charter says
we can't take on this work, or
On 5/17/2016 12:53 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
he charter enumerates three tracks, the first of which appears to allow
discussion of new protocols; in particular, one might argue that ARC is
a "form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit through
intermediaries". However, in
On 05/17/2016 13:14, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>
> MK: Absent a desire to form a distinct working group to develop ARC, I think
> we need to discuss rechartering before we can entertain this motion.
>
> MH: If we need to re-charter then I think we should re-charter. There
> are already
On 05/17/2016 12:53, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>
> The charter enumerates three tracks, the first of which appears to allow
> discussion of new protocols; in particular, one might argue that ARC is
> a "form of DKIM signature that is better able to survive transit through
> intermediaries".
Comments in-line
From: dmarc [mailto:dmarc-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2016 3:53 PM
To: Alessandro Vesely
Cc: Kurt Andersen (b); DMARC; Barry Leiba
Subject: [!!Mass Mail]Re: [dmarc-ietf] Proposal to adopt ARC documents into the
WG (toward phase 2
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> > Does anyone object to having the DMARC working group take on this work?
>
I agree with Alessandro, but for procedural reasons: I'm not sure it fits
within our present charter.
The charter enumerates three tracks, the
On Wed 11/May/2016 18:00:25 +0200 Barry Leiba wrote:
> It certainly seems that the working group is interested in discussing
> ARC, as I can judge from the discussion in the short time since Kurt's
> proposal. So let's go back and get a proper answer:
>
> Does anyone object to having the DMARC
10 matches
Mail list logo