Re: [dmarc-ietf] Rethinking DMARC for PSDs

+1 on moving the discussion elsewhere

Tim

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 10:27 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>
wrote:

> <chair hat on>
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 5:27 PM Douglas E. Foster <
> fosterd@bayviewphysicians.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott, you misunderstand what this type of standard would look like.   It
>> would defines Use Cases that the device should address, with some
>> acknowledgement to the tradeoffs between perceived risk and perceived
>> difficulty of implementation.
>>
>
> If what you're looking to do is drum up interest for working on this and,
> if there's critical mass to do the work, getting something published, I
> suggest any of the following:
>
> ietf-822@ietf.org (message format discussions)
> ietf-smtp@ietf.org (SMTP discussions)
> art@ietf.org (ART area general discussions)
> dispatch@ietf.org (once you have an actual proposal for work that needs a
> home)
>
> ....possibly others, but those spring immediately to mind.  However, I
> believe Scott is correct that this work is not currently within our
> charter, and thus it's off-topic for this list.  I don't believe there's
> any working group currently chartered to produce something like what's
> being proposed here; EXTRA probably comes closest, and I think it's
> off-topic there too.
>
> Some years ago Dave Crocker and I assembled RFC 6647 about greylisting,
> which was an applicability statement over email in general that talked
> about how to implement greylisting.  You could follow that model if you
> like, which merits standards track publication, though that means you'll
> need to convince an AD to sponsor it or form a working group to develop it.
>
> If my co-chair concurs, then it's appropriate that this conversation be
> moved elsewhere.
>
> -MSK
> _______________________________________________
> dmarc mailing list
> dmarc@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
>