On Tue 01/Jul/2014 18:00:43 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote: > On 6/20/2014 12:38 PM, Dave Crocker wrote: >> Here is some draft text to consider for a DMARC working group charter: > > > G'day, > > I've looked over the small amount of mail posted about the draft charter > and do not see any changes mandated. > > Apologies if I've missed something, and I assure you it wasn't > intentional. So please do re-state the suggestion.
My question about the stance toward DKIM tweaks[1] was never answered. To re-state, while preclusion is apparent for the organizational domain issue, it is not clear for DKIM. The charter says: The working group will not develop additional mail authentication technologies, but may document authentication requirements that are desirable. Something similar to the example I-D in [1] was expressed in recent discussions, so I hope for additional developments of existing mail authentication technologies not being precluded. Please clarify. Clarity and comprehensibility are very important from my POV[2]. For that sake, I suggest the charter mention candidate solutions such as DKIM-Delegate and TPA-Labels explicitly. Some further wordsmithing may be advisable too. Thank you Ale [1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dmarc/current/msg01419.html [2] I'm a (very) small mailbox provider, and I think the IETF ought to provide some suitable-for-all specifications for running effective MTAs, the 'S' in SMTP. Otherwise we might as well limit ourselves to using Google or Apple and be happy. That's why I try and participate in some WGs. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
