On Wed, Mar 4, 2026 at 3:51 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 think that irrespective of its status, if ARC had been able to deliver results like what we thought might be possible, its adoption would have been far more solid. But it didn't, and so it wasn't. That is, I don't think it would've been any better had this WG or some other taken it all the way to Proposed Standard status before re-tackling DMARC. 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. > I'd support this if I thought there might be something in ARC worth developing, but I haven't seen any evidence of such interest or momentum. Put another way, if the charter said this, who would put in work on the latter branch? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
