On 8/10/20 12:04 PM, Tim Wicinski wrote: > > During IETF 108, the chairs realized that there was interest in Dave's > RFC5322.Sender draft. > > This starts a Call for Adoption for draft-crocker-dmarc-sender
I do not support adoption of this draft as a working group document for different reasons than I have seen expressed by others on the list. If the Sender header field is to be used by DMARC in the manner described in this draft, it should be an integral part of the DMARCbis specification rather than a separate extension to it. In other words, this should be an issue on the DMARC WG issue tracker rather than a working group draft (and presumably eventual RFC). There are enough different combinations of originators and receivers that might use Sender (which the chart in Section 2 begins to describe) that we don't need the ongoing ambiguity of whether the receiver does or does not implement this as an extension. I have other comments on the proposal, but will stop here as they are not directly germane to the question of adoption. -Jim
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
