On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 9:13 AM Daniel K. <[email protected]> wrote: > It is mentioned several times in that thread that failure reporting is > going on by private arrangement. For this reason too, I think a proper > format for the reports should be specified. >
I suggest that this is at least in part a contradiction. Consider: If the arrangement is entirely private, what's the need for standardization? > I have reviewed and sent pull requests for all the DMARC documents, and > I was under the impression that there was in fact just polishing left to > do on this one, RFC Editor work. I do not understand what held it up, if > not the 'excessive amount of pages for review' at the same time I > mentioned up-thread. > It was, procedurally, very early in its development: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-failure-reporting/history/ RFC Editor work is the last step. It still needed to go through Working Group Last Call, AD Evaluation, IETF Last Call, and IESG Evaluation, before the RFC Editor got it. If we were to reopen the WG with the charter of 'Get failure reporting > done', am I wrong to think that the document is mostly finished and > ready to be sent through the pipeline? > I don't have a good feel for the state of the content. I do think there have been some good arguments made that it's not worth the effort. I don't know where consensus falls on that question, and it's not my call to make. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
