With the group officially in Phase III of the DMARC WG charter, our work is now to explicitly review and refine the DMARC specification, with the goal of generating a standards track document.
The draft-ietf-dmarc-psd experiment is part of this process, as is the conversation about defining proper ARC reporting XML for DMARC reports. This email is an explicit CALL FOR ISSUES AND NITS about the DMARC spec which you believe should be officially discussed as part of the DMARCbis process. Please start a separate thread for each item you have. I'll make sure all are properly in the issue tracker and get addressed. Please send in your items no later than *Friday, May 24th*. After this point, we'll be focusing on progressing the DMARCbis process, not gathering new issues. Below are a list of nits already in the datatracker. I'll be kicking off threads for several other issues I'm aware of shortly. Thanks everyone! Seth, as Secretary Active issues for DMARCbis in the data tracker: - SPF 4408 vs 7208: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/1 - Flow of operations text: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/2 - Two tiny nits in 6.6.2 and 6.6.3: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/2 - Definition of "fo" parameter: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/4 - Definition of "pct" parameter: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/5 - Fuzzy normative language around filenames: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/6 - ABNF for dmarc-record is slightly wrong: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/7 - Perverse incentives to use p!=none & pct=0: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/22 - objection to maintaining registry for all participating public suffixes: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/24 - Link to "URI" reference broken in several sections: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/25
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
