On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:58 AM Dotzero <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess I was under the misimpression that IETF is a technical standards > body, not a marketing organization. Perhaps the working group could come up > with a cute logo and charge people for using it to show their compliance. > Is there another IETF standard that has levels of compliance as a marketing > tool? If organizations or governments instruct people "to implement" DMARC, > I would suggest that the onus is on them to provide better guidance as to > what they require. >
This is a ticket about precision. There are multiple actors within the scope of DMARC, and the document lacks the explicit use cases and definitions for the interactions to be stated precisely. If you think the document is clear, say so. In these threads, there seems to be agreement that it's not terribly clear, and a BCP might help disambiguate. The Chairs have explicitly asked for rough consensus on this topic, as having part of these definitions in the base spec will drive clarity and scope as other changes are made. If we can't define what it means for each actor to participate in DMARC, how can we possibly write a coherent and consistent spec? Seth, as Chair -- *Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies *e:* [email protected] *p:* 415.273.8818 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
