On 6/12/20 10:49 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > Hi Alessandro, > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2020, at 5:51 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri 12/Jun/2020 18:09:41 +0200 Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>> On behalf of DMARC chairs I would like to ask for volunteers to edit future >>> revisions of draft-kucherawy-dmarc-dmarcbis. We are likely to split up the >>> current document into multiple drafts that can be progressed in parallel, >>> so we are seeking multiple editors to help with this. >> >> Is it already defined which and how many I-Ds will the WG do? > We (chairs) only had a preliminary discussion. I think at least 3 (aggregated > reports, failure reports, the rest).
About a year ago, I had suggested [1] that the reporting and policy mechanisms of DMARC be split, and was, I think, the only one supporting that idea. There were quite a few comments along the line of, "it's not broken, so why should we go to the trouble?" Although you have only had a preliminary discussion, do you have in mind an editorial split (different functional pieces, but DMARC is still one thing) or an actual split into separate specifications? Someone (not sure who) said in yesterday's interim that DMARC could run into trouble in IETF Last Call or in IESG review because of the breakage to mailing lists, etc. If we had independent specifications, at least the reporting pieces could proceed. So I (still) support the split. -Jim [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/HJwOvLspQKo-_GuW7W9xZPvv370/ _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
