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 implementations of ARC and there appears to be sufficient > support to justify the effort.
I've had discussions with a few folks, and nobody seemed to think this was outside the existing charter. I hope they'll speak up if they still see things the same way... > MH: This is not an extension of DMARC itself. It leverages a DKIM like > signing approach to provide additional data points to validators wishing > to implement local policy in a more informed manner. This is a nuanced > but important difference unless someone is suggesting munging ARC into > DMARC itself. If ARC is approached as a standalone protocol, incorporating support for it into DMARC still involves changes to the DMARC specification at some point. For example, the ARC spec suggests concrete changes to the DMARC aggregate report's local_policy section. If that change in and of itself isn't worthy of work, do we need a clearer extension mechanism? > MK: I have an unreleased implementation of that. It also more easily > qualifies under our charter, IMHO. I think we should at least allow > discussion of that one. > > MH: I thought running code was one of the criteria. Dkim-conditional > never got significant support. I’m not against it per se but unless > there is a compelling reason I prefer to avoid re-visiting old ground. I have no objection to conditional signatures per se, and it seems appropriate to have a discussion of the merits. And I will refrain from starting that discussion now... ;) --S. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
