Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)x

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 7/17/2014 7:30 AM, John C Klensin wrote:
>     but the IETF has, at
> least IMO, tended to avoid protocols that favor large providers
> but hurt small ones 

While that certainly sounds appealing, I'm not aware of any IETF policy
or pattern of practice in that regard.

Please supply some documentation for it.


> To me, that makes decisions about damage-mitigation work for a
> non-essential protocol complicated because one way to eliminate
> the damage is to not support the protocol at all, possibly
> including stripping its headers whenever they are encountered.

What 'headers' are you referring to?


> I don't want to try to do the WG's work at charter discussion
...
> ignoring) DMARC headers whenever they are encountered".

DMARC does not (currently) have any 'headers'.


>    I just want to be sure it is at least treated
> as a legitimate alternative and that, should someone complain on
> IETF Last Call that it wasn't considered seriously and/or that
> the reasons for not going in that direction are not adequately
> documented, such complaints cannot be dismissed on the basis of
> language in the charter.

Please suggest charter text.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net