Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-00.txt

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:57 AM Gene Hightower wrote: > From the document: > > > > > 4.1. Authentication Mechanisms > > > The following mechanisms for determining Authenticated Identifiers > > are supported in this version of

Re: [dmarc-ietf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-00.txt

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 1:57 PM Gene Hightower wrote: > From the document: > > > > > 4.1. Authentication Mechanisms > > > The following mechanisms for determining Authenticated Identifiers > > are supported in this version of

Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

To be clear, I encouraged the chairs to hold the meeting as scheduled. My reasons: a) It is likely some people registered for IETF 109 specifically to attend this and maybe one or two other email-related meetings, possibly at their own expense. Canceling this late in the game does them a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

Yes, I apologize for not getting back to the WG as promised. The meeting will proceed as scheduled. -MSK, ART AD On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:10 PM Dotzero wrote: > Considering that some of us have to be up in the wee hours to participate, > it would be nice to know whether it is happening or

Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

On 17 Nov 2020, at 11:35, Dave Crocker wrote: On 11/16/2020 10:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you shortly. Forgive me, but this is all a bit nuts. Very few days before the scheduled session, we get a query about

Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

+1 to being able to sleep through the night and deal with issues asynchronously on the list. --Kurt On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 12:10 PM Dotzero wrote: > Considering that some of us have to be up in the wee hours to participate, > it would be nice to know whether it is happening or cancelled. Just

Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

Considering that some of us have to be up in the wee hours to participate, it would be nice to know whether it is happening or cancelled. Just saying. If the agenda is that light weight I may skip it even if held. Michael Hammer. On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 2:35 PM Dave Crocker wrote: > On

Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

On 11/16/2020 10:46 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: I'm discussing this with the chairs and they or I will get back to you shortly. Forgive me, but this is all a bit nuts. Very few days before the scheduled session, we get a query about canceling it, though the query also included a fresh,

Re: [dmarc-ietf] Second WGLC for draft-ietf-dmarc-psd: Definition of NP

I did not see a definition of a “non-existent domain” (the np policy). A definition is needed. To my thinking, the obvious rule should be to query for a NS record for the domain. If the record exists, then the domain owner could create a DMARC record for that domain, or could create a

Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 1:54 AM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > If the meeting were to be held, who (besides Jim) was planning to attend? > > I was planning to attend. -- *Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager *e:* todd.h...@valimail.com *p:* 703.220.4153 This email and all data

Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

> If the meeting were to be held, who (besides Jim) was planning to attend? Scheduled time to be there "virtually" at the meeting. - Alwin On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 10:28, Gren Elliot wrote: > > If the meeting were to be held, who (besides Jim) was planning to attend? > > I am - admittedly

Re: [dmarc-ietf] IETF 109 possible agenda/session discussion

> If the meeting were to be held, who (besides Jim) was planning to attend? I am - admittedly because I thought this would be a good chance to learn more about DMARC. Would this not be a good chance to potentially increase interest? ___ dmarc mailing