On 10/24/2014 5:17 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Hector Santos writes:
> POLICY has been reestablished as the DKIM framework long ago.
I have no clue what this sentence means. What is "POLICY"?
DMARC rev 4 spec has 184 global search references to the term POLICY.
DKIM has a 9 year history regarding a POLICY framework.
What is "the DKIM framework"?
Framework is a well understand term, Stephen.
> But until them are we wasting time? Yes, I think so.
Let me rephrase what I wrote before:
Most WG participants seem to be closer to the position that
currently available proposals are unlikely to solve the indirect
mail problems, and are unlikely to achieve widespread adoption by
Author Domains just because they get standardized here or in other
venues.
DMARC is a DKIM Policy Framework. According the marketing, it has gain
widespread adoption especially among your list users domains. Isn't
why you are here, to stop it?
The proposals themselves (TPA, John Levine's delegation
scheme, Dave Crocker and Murray Kucherawy's delegation scheme,
others?) have been developed and will contine to be discussed and
improved here and in other channels, but they don't seem to be
anything like a general solution, and most WG participants seem to
be of the opinion that clarifying and documenting the issues and
their relation to proposed solutions is not a waste of time.
Great, then since you have purport to have a "consensus," with "most
WG participants," you should be able to get something done pretty quickly.
Thanks for your comments.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
