[dmarc-ietf] Deliverable #4 - DMARC Usage Guide

Mike Jones <mjones@mail.agari.com> Mon, 27 October 2014 22:27 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:27:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CABDkrv0nS4D8JQ+fcqBF4tLVzZXcpaqTWmpisjanVhrb3VbrFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Jones <mjones@mail.agari.com>
To: "dmarc@ietf.org" <dmarc@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0160a44ea8dba805066f0a1d"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/dTkOHa5ZyLgVW9XTTYcmxlc3IXs
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Deliverable #4 - DMARC Usage Guide
Precedence: list

The working group charter has a deliverable to produce "A Usage Guide to
document DMARC-related operational practices".  I believe we have discussed
on this list that the existing 'Using DMARC' document,
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-crocker-dmarc-bcp-03, will be the basis of
this usage guide.    The charter also indicates the work on the usage guide
will be in phases 2 & 3, while we are currently in phase 1.  But I believe
there are many areas of the existing document that could be reviewed and
updated in parallel with the phase 1 activities around the discovery and
documentation of issues with DMARC and indirect mail flows.  For example, I
wrote most of sections 7 & 8  of the existing document (Report Generation &
Report Receipt and Analysis) about 2 years ago based on observed and
anticipated practice at that time.  A lot of this could be reviewed an
updated now, based on experience since then, without waiting for the output
from phase 1.

I would like to start reviewing and suggesting edits to the 'Using DMARC'
guide sooner rather than later. Will this violate any procedural rules of
the working group? If not, does anyone think this will detract from the
ongoing phase 1 work?

Thanks,
Mike

[dmarc-ietf] Deliverable #4 - DMARC Usage Guide Mike Jones