On 1/23/2015 8:29 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
For reasons not worth getting into now, this version of the base
specification is on track to be published not as a standard but as an
"Informational" document, kind of as a handoff step between the team
that first developed DMARC and the IETF, which is more rigorous in
terms of developing standards. The goal posts to which I'm referring
are the completion of that handoff. We need to publish DMARC in its
current state, even if it's not full-standard quality yet, to do so.
If we reset that process every time a defect is identified, we might
not be done for a really long time.
The probably you face is new implementations of this "info" version
which to them is a "pseudo" standard track item.
I think you got most of whats needed. But I would add more info as a
"Get Ready" guide to minimize changes in the future.
[1] Get ready for 3rd Party Extensions
[2] Make sure DMARC processors DO NOT BARF on unknown #1 tags.
[3] Forget about ADSP, remove A.5
[4] Independent DMARC modules need to be aware of independent SPF
4408 only modules
DMARC will not be final when this version is published. If it's
broken, I agree it should be fixed, and we have a process for that.
Too long and costly and that fact we have to wait for you, its has a
major delay and cost impact now, i.e. no rush to do anything now, list
systems and list users have to wait for solutions (until you are are
ready to work with it). Seriously, the IETF AD needs to be aware of
the man power issue. There is no reason why can't have parallel 3rd
party Policy Design teams working. There are interested parties to
help here. There is no reason why ATPS can't be updated for
DMARC to get early explorers started. Remember, before, the interest
was not there with ADSP. But now you have it with DMARC. Much
different situation now.
Good luck
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
