On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 5:34 PM Douglas Foster < dougfoster.emailstanda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In short, I am not part of the presumed consensus on this document. I will > vigorously oppose any document which does not discuss malicious > impersonation defenses for every domain. > Doug, A working group charter is a sort of contract with the IESG that stipulates what the working group will produce and how it will operate. This is meant to keep the working group on track and eschew distractions and scope creep. The charter for this particular working group is visible in the IETF datatracker. If you read it, you'll see that this working group is not chartered to do anything as broad as what I believe you are demanding here. Put another way: Were it to produce the document that you appear to expect, it likely would be sent back as exceeding the working group's charter. A full treatment of sender authentication and malicious impersonation far exceeds what DMARC by itself is capable of addressing, and we here are only dealing with DMARC. We are chartered here to revise RFC 7489 based on operational experience acquired since DMARC was first deployed, and in this and other ways prepare it for publication on the Standards Track, and possibly produce ancillary documents. We are not chartered to produce an broad treatment of the sort you seek. The sentiment of your first sentence is noted. The sentiment of your second, however, seems like a threat that you intend to make yourself vexatious to the progress of the document, and I truly hope you don't mean that. -MSK, ART AD
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
