My overall assessment as an early adopter and implementation:
DMARC SHOULD NOT be declared a Standard Track document. We still have the
potential to develop a sound 1st, 3rd party DKIM Policy model. Declaring
DMARCBis a STD will only hamper future development. Keep it experimental or
No might about it -- ARC is only useful with domain reputation. Of course, DKIM
is only useful with domain reputation, as were Domainkeys and IIM, so I don't
see why it's a problem now.
Much of the objective of DomainKeys/IIM/DKIM was to provide a reliable
domain identifier that could be
On 4 Apr 2024, at 13:31, John R. Levine wrote:
>> I don’t think it’s scope creep at all. The WG charter puts “Review and
>> refinement of the DMARC specification” in phase III, after “Specification of
>> DMARC improvements to support indirect mail flows”. It seems clear to me
>> that
I don’t think it’s scope creep at all. The WG charter puts “Review and
refinement of the DMARC specification” in phase III, after “Specification of
DMARC improvements to support indirect mail flows”. It seems clear to me that
standards-track DMARC needs to incorporate those improvements.
IESG
