On 18-08-15 04:09, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
  This draft is a work item of the Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting 
& Conformance Working Group of the IETF.

         Title           : Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and Indirect 
Email Flows
         Authors         : Franck Martin
                           Eliot Lear
                           Tim Draegen
                           Elizabeth Zwicky
                           Kurt Andersen
        Filename        : draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-05.txt
        Pages           : 22
        Date            : 2015-08-17

Abstract:
    DMARC introduces a mechanism for expressing domain-level policies and
    preferences for email message validation, disposition, and reporting.
    The DMARC mechanism can encounter interoperability issues when
    messages do not flow directly from the author's administrative domain
    to the final recipients.  Collectively these email flows are referred
    to as indirect email flows.  This document describes interoperability
    issues between DMARC and indirect email flows.  Possible methods for
    addressing interoperability issues are presented.

I've reviewed version -05 and have only one comment (about text which is not new in this version). I think par. 3.2.5 - Boundary Filters should be removed from this document. After all, SPF, DKIM and DMARC have always been positioned as 'edge' technologies, where (primarily) the edge MTA's of both author administrative domain and final recipients administrative domain provide authententication, validation and disposition. So although all of par. 3.2.5 is true, IMHO it does not belong in a document with title 'Interoperability Issues Between DMARC and _Indirect_ Email Flows'. As an alternative we could change the scope of the entire document, by leaving par. 3.2.5 where it is now, changing the title of the document to 'Interoperability Issues when using DMARC' and re-think the use of the word 'indirect' throughout the document (some 12 places in the text).

It may be better to move section 3.2.5 to some future to be written BCP about the use of DMARC (and SPF and DKIM) in general.

/rolf

_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc

Reply via email to