We were consulted near the end (as in, the BOD was nearly final), but
none of our comments changed the text as it is now.
From conversations we had, DHS did not include DKIM because they could
not figure out a way to fully test for compliance. They knew of it, and
have in fact asked agencies to report on DKIM usage in previous years.
The authors of the BOD knew about DKIM’s interactions with mailing
lists, so that might have been a reason to not include it.
Our main concerns were the fairly quick deadlines (in gov’t terms).
Many agencies have long term contracts with their email providers and
may have issues meeting some of the deadlines.
Scott
On 18 Oct 2017, at 18:19, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Hi,
See
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcyber.dhs.gov%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cscott.rose%40nist.gov%7Cb5347aa561ac4463b2c108d516765afb%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C636439619945868015&sdata=pzPhmEpOJgCXqSOXVLtK8OMwNaIkkdywSmCSHDzoAKM%3D&reserved=0
DKIM is mentioned but not required, nor any negative side effects that
the use of DMARC can have. Has anyone from the IETF been consulted for
this directive?
/rolf
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fdmarc&data=02%7C01%7Cscott.rose%40nist.gov%7Cb5347aa561ac4463b2c108d516765afb%7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C636439619945868015&sdata=nK%2FlKruHCEWTNaF4flKnBy2aGeeFQu01%2BWsFRBLmzac%3D&reserved=0
===================================
Scott Rose
NIST ITL
scott.r...@nist.gov
+1-301-975-8439
GV: +1-571-249-3671
===================================
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
