We have come to a point in our discussions of draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis that the basic content and features of DMARC are stable and have rough consensus. Coupling that with the expectation, as in the working group's charter, that changes to the protocol that break interoperability with installed base need detailed justification, I think we need to be clear on how to go forward as we finish up.
At this point, again, we consider the content and features to be stable, and changes to that are no longer in scope. Of course, if we find real problems, things that don't work as intended and need fixing, those need to be raised. But anything that goes to "Hey, I have an idea...," or "I really wish this worked differently," becomes, at this point, an impediment to progress, given the extensive discussion we have already had. Second, as you can all see from my own comments on draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis we are now at the stage where comments on the text need to be accompanied by suggestions of specific text changes. If there's something you think isn't right, please raise it as an issue and be specific about what you want changed and why, preferably in an "OLD/NEW" sort of format so that (1) it's absolutely clear and (2) others can easily discuss the proposal and tweak the wording as needed. I believe we're very close to being done with this document. Let's work on finishing it up and then getting the other documents finished as well. Barry, as chair _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
