On Tue 03/Mar/2026 20:42:33 +0100 Trent Adams wrote:
Seth -
Thanks for keeping us on track.
In my initial proposal I’d offered up a rough draft charter that might work:
https://github.com/ietf-artarea/charters/blob/main/dmarc/charter.md <https://
github.com/ietf-artarea/charters/blob/main/dmarc/charter.md>
Do you (or anyone else) think this is a reasonable start and/or need any
tweaking to keep the ball rolling?
IMHO this charter attempts to put the cart before the horse. While the intent
is clear, there has been differing opinions on the matter. One reason for
ARC's limited success is that, immediately after its publication, the WG
focused on its primary objective, and the chairs, correctly, postponed any
proposals on indirect mail flows until the main I-Ds were published. This lack
of support has led to erratic adoption.
I would amend the proposed charter as follows:
OLD:
Accordingly, DMARC is being rechartered to publish a document that moves RFC
8617 to historical/obsolete status, including prose describing the history and
current status of the work.
NEW:
Accordingly, DMARC is being rechartered to investigate the current status of
deployment and the possible potential, ultimately publishing a document that
either moves RFC 8617 to historical/obsolete status, or corrects its usage
model so that ARC can effectively regain its intended role.
Best
anyone else
--
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
