For clarity: When you say, "AD will call consensus on this issue", you mean after the results of the discussion are brought to the list and reviewed by the working group, not at the meeting, right?
Also, I expect to have a proposal on protocol reliability related to the "drop SPF" discussion, in the next day or three. Scott K On July 6, 2023 3:00:23 PM UTC, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote: >Below is the agenda I am posting for the session at IETF 117. >Comments, changes, and additions are welcome; please post them here. > >Barry > >------------------------------------------------------- > >DMARC working group session at IETF 117 >Friday, 28 July, 2023 — 12:00-13:30 PDT (UTC-7) > >- Introduction and administration >- Document status > >- Discussion of p=reject: > - What’s needed to deal with the indirect mail flow problems? > - Options currently open: > - No change to current text > - Move ARC to Standards Track (need more data) > - Scott Kitterman’s proposed text > - Barry Leiba’s proposed text (new Interoperability Considerations section) > - AD will call consensus on this issue > >- Discussion of SPF use in DMARC > - There was a proposal to remove SPF from DMARC > - The proposal is *only* related to use of SPF *in DMARC* > - Options currently open: > - No change to current text > - Simply remove SPF from DMARC consideration > - Add a DMARC record tag to specify use of SPF, DKIM, or either > - Do we also add “both must align”? > >- Any other business > >------------------------------------------------------- > >_______________________________________________ >dmarc mailing list >dmarc@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
