On 9/14/25 4:32 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
On Sat 13/Sep/2025 18:07:04 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 4:16 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]>
wrote:
That list has not been updated since RFC 6591 was published. If
it's rarely, if ever, extended, then is it enough to just say "This
document updates 6591" and "Here's the new list" rather than making
something almost- static for IANA to manage?
The draft already states that it updates 6591, so yes, a developer
can go that route[*]. DKIM2 provides for various levels of failure,
since changes will be undoable; perhaps it will define new failure
types accordingly?>
I don't think this group is chartered to do things in anticipation of
DKIM2. We have a very simple and restricted task here.
Of course, we can never predict what DKIM2 will discover. I've only
mentioned it as a possible source of future extensions to the
Auth-Failure field, to show that a registry might not be such a
far-fetched idea after all. OTOH, recall that DMARC failure reporting
has had much wider adoption than other applications of RFC 6591, so
it's natural that this standardization would somehow complement its
specification. Creating a registry, as part of Section 6, is fully
within our charter. The question is whether there is consensus within
the WG.
If we only have one value to add, creating a new registry seems like
overkill. If DKIM2 has a number of others, a registry could be suggested
as part of that process.
Or, if needed perhaps a general overhaul of RFC 6591 Auth-Failure values
could be done under MailMaint? But it seems out of scope here.
--S.
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
