I'd vote for discussing the "auth=" tag proposal at IETF-118, and I can participate remotely. Discussing this on the mailing list is easier, but will be drawn out as it's harder to understand if there is consensus one way or the other. The advantage is that this will time box the discussion and I've heard many voices wanting closure so that DMARCbis can be published. -Wei
On Sat, Oct 28, 2023 at 11:02 AM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: > > > On October 28, 2023 5:38:00 PM UTC, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> > wrote: > >I'm starting this in a separate thread that I want to keep for ONLY > >the following question: > > > >Do we want to use the session we have scheduled at IETF 118 to talk > >about the issue that clearly is still in discussion about adding a tag > >to specify which authentication mechanism(s) to use when evaluating > >DMARC? > > > >Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue > >on the mailing list? > > > >And being clear here: the "eliminate SPF entirely" suggestion is > >definitely out, failing rough consensus. We're *only* talking about > >the suggestion to add a tag to specify what the sender wants. > > > I think cancel the meeting and keep the discussion on the ML. > > Scott K > > _______________________________________________ > 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
