And to be clear - I volunteer to write these documents and drive them to
completion.
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 8:32 PM, Seth Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 7:57 PM, John Levine wrote:
>
>> I understand the motivation, but I think that if we do that, it makes
>> it a lot less likely that p
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 7:57 PM, John Levine wrote:
> I understand the motivation, but I think that if we do that, it makes
> it a lot less likely that people will actually implement the
> rotation stuff.
>
Since there are only a handful of major implementations right now, all of
whom are partic
In article
you write:
>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-10)
>feels clunky and itself says it needs more work.
To put it mildly.
>Assuming we're proceeding as an Experiment, I propose we address rotation
>in a separate draft.
I understand the motivation, but
The Implementation Status section of the draft (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-14)
feels out of date.
If you're working on an implementation, please speak up so that we can
include you!
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-13
Beyond my notes below, the Security Considerations section feels weak, and
like it should at least inherit DKIM's security considerations.
Additionally, there have definitely been items called out on this list
(like the abilit
This got buried in two other threads (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/E9fOn8dIEiFqQJBz1GyFUimWVcM,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/Bv55cS12p41j3XhWzuu5RybvzTA) so
I'm just raising it to the top level.
Algorithm rotation is clearly more complex in ARC where you only have a
If 7601bis proceeds to allow content for filters in addition to humans,
then I believe the actions in the ARC draft (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10) are as
follows:
Section 5.2 is cleaned up to inherit AAR ABNF from 7601bis.
Section 5.2.1 is stricken.
New IANA regi
Sections 4.7 and 4.8 from my proposal (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/yl1HWdNbmQR1wHlCvG3eRl9ph5E)
were not moved into the protocol elements section of the latest draft (
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-10#section-4)
I spoke with Kurt, and this appears to ha
I'm beginning a new thread to explicitly address some differences of
opinion in the working group.
Coming out of IETF99 and surrounding working group conversations (
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/5_OP8lVi-a3yHMS0hqs1clyLWj4,
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/4Gu1EErK4iuo9pQ
Hello -It sure is weird and surreal to be dropped from the d-marc list for
bouncing too many emails when the ONLY reason I joined years ago to begin was
to keep abreast of the 'reconstruction project' so that I could learn when I
could re-join the LOC email lists I was dropped from for too many
10 matches
Mail list logo
