Deleted milestone "Complete EAI update to SPF/DKIM/DMARC".
Deleted milestone "Complete Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) usage
recommendations".
URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/about/
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
In article <82509274-bc89-495b-bd94-6d1f7846d...@kitterman.com> you write:
>Is this milestone really done? The protocol document references
>draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi, which
>isn't done yet. Doesn't it need to be done too before this gets checked off
>(there is no separate
>milestone for
Hi Scott,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018, at 6:47 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Is this milestone really done? The protocol document references draft-
> ietf-dmarc-arc-multi, which isn't done yet. Doesn't it need to be done
> too before this gets checked off (there is no separate milestone for
> multi).
Is this milestone really done? The protocol document references
draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-multi, which isn't done yet. Doesn't it need to be done
too before this gets checked off (there is no separate milestone for multi).
Scott K
On October 25, 2018 11:42:44 AM UTC, IETF Secretariat
wrote:
Changed milestone "Complete Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) protocol
spec", resolved as "Done".
URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/about/
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Changed milestone "Complete Authenticated Received Chain (ARC)
protocol spec", set state to active from review, accepting new
milestone.
Changed milestone "Complete Authenticated Received Chain (ARC) usage
recommendations", set state to active from review, accepting new
milestone.
URL:
Changed milestone "Complete draft on DMARC interop issues + possible
methods to address", set due date to June 2015 from February 2015,
resolved as "Done".
URL: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
Changed milestone Complete draft on DMARC interop issues + possible
methods to address, set due date to February 2015 from December 2014,
added draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability to milestone.
URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/
___
dmarc
Pete Resnick writes:
While I agree in principle, this is a distinction that is likely to
be lost on people outside of the WG. DMARC improvements in the
charter was meant to encompass possible changes to the DMARC spec,
deletions from the DMARC spec, and additions to the DMARC spec
My
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com wrote:
While the PSL might be useful for offering some web related assertions,
its current form is inappropriate for email policy. Those working on the
web/email related issues might hope these common concerns will engender
On 8/30/14 12:52 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Pete Resnick writes:
Good point:
Mar 2015Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better
support indirect email flows
Up to this point the discussion on the dmarc mailing list has focused
on alternative channels (Otis's
On Aug 30, 2014, at 9:57 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
We in the WG understand what we mean, and we can certainly be clear about it
in the wiki. But I see no need for a change to the milestone text.
Almost had some crosstalk..
Stephen, the wiki is supposed to make this
On 8/28/14 8:52 AM, IETF Secretariat wrote:
URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/
Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]:
While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for
internal WG management (and in fact I think you could even add more of
them), I think for the
On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]:
While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for internal
WG management (and in fact I think you could even add more of them), I think
for the external-facing milestones on the
On 8/29/14 12:35 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnickpresn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]:
While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for internal WG management (and in
fact I think you could even add more of them), I think
On 8/29/2014 11:06 AM, Pete Resnick wrote:
Dec 2014Complete draft on DMARC interop issues + possible methods to
address
Mar 2015Complete draft on DMARC improvements to better support
indirect email flows
May 2015Complete draft on DMARC Usage Guide
May 2015Complete draft on
On 8/29/14 12:35 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnickpresn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]:
While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for internal WG management (and
in fact I think you could even add more of them), I think
On 8/29/14 1:09 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Not clear to me what draft on DMARC improvements... means. Is it a
spec, a design discussion, or what?
Good point:
Mar 2015Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better
support indirect email flows
I'm also wondering about
On 8/29/14 1:08 PM, Ned Freed wrote:
Is complete draft the usual way these things are done now? It used
to be
that you list WGLC, LC, RFC published for each.
Different groups do them different ways. I'm partial to just listing the
complete draft, since LC and RFC published are dependent on
On Aug 29, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Dave Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
I'm also wondering about the implied overlap of work, cased on the close
proximity of the final milestones.
The final milestones represent parallel work efforts -- and hopefully they're
different enough from each other that
On 8/29/14 1:19 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Merely as a possible tool for figuring out the major milestones, perhaps
the external choices should wait for the more detailed inward set of
dates? Those will give a clearer sense of the wg focus on different
topics at different times.
I do prefer
On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Pete Resnick presn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
On 8/29/14 12:35 PM, Tim Draegen wrote:
On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Pete Resnickpresn...@qti.qualcomm.com wrote:
Tim/Ned [Ccing WG]:
While I think the milestones that appear in the wiki are great for
On Aug 29, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Douglas Otis doug.mtv...@gmail.com wrote:
The charter statement indicates work on a public suffix concept is
out-of-scope. This is fine provided the definition used in the charter is
retained:
[snip]
Such policy assertions should be a matter handled within the
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
Simply put, the public suffix concept is useful beyond what DMARC requires
of it. The best that DMARC can do (as a piece of technology) is fully
articulate 1 specific use case for the public suffix concept, and hope that
On Aug 29, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy superu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Tim Draegen t...@eudaemon.net wrote:
Simply put, the public suffix concept is useful beyond what DMARC requires of
it. The best that DMARC can do (as a piece of technology) is
Pete Resnick writes:
Good point:
Mar 2015Complete draft specification on DMARC improvements to better
support indirect email flows
Up to this point the discussion on the dmarc mailing list has focused
on alternative channels (Otis's TPA-labels, Kucherawy-Crocker's
DKIM-Delegate)
URL: http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/charter/
___
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
27 matches
Mail list logo
