Subject: [dmarc-ietf] phase 1 is done

From: Tim Draegen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 09:54:39 -0400

This working group's "phase 1" is now done.

The Chairs will be shepherding the phase 1 interoperability draft:

  https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability

The WG will now move ahead to phase 2:

  https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dmarc/trac/wiki/MilestoneTwoWiki

When discussing methods and techniques that address an interoperability issue, please explicitly reference the issue from the draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability draft.  This will allow for easier tracking of issues & proposed fixes by volunteers a lot easier.

=- Tim

---

From: "Kurt Andersen (b)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 10:21:51 -0700

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:54 AM, Tim Draegen <[email-masked]> wrote:

> When discussing methods and techniques that address an interoperability
> issue, please explicitly reference the issue from the
> draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability draft.  This will allow for easier
> tracking of issues & proposed fixes by volunteers a lot easier.
>

I would like to officially propose, and ask for the WG's support of
adopting https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-andersen-arc/ and the
corresponding, but separate usage recommendations
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jones-arc-usage/ as standards-track
documents within the WG to help mitigate the interoperability problems that
were cataloged.

Specifically, in draft -09 of the interop document, I had cited ARC in
section 4.2 as an instance of a "[m]echanism[s] to extend
Authentication-Results [RFC7601] to multiple hops. . ." (
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dmarc-interoperability-09#section-4.2)
but subsequently abstracted that "work in progress" out of the document to
honor our milestone framework.

--Kurt Andersen