30 ms·

There is a concluded IETF WG called dbound (I don't know why it concluded!) and a current Internet-Draft about doing this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/dra

by schoen 6y ago

There is a concluded IETF WG called dbound (I don't know why it concluded!) and a current Internet-Draft about doing this: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dbound-dns/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dbound-dns/

sleevi 6y ago
It concluded because, despite everyone agreeing they wanted a unicorn, they couldn’t agree which breed of unicorn they wanted, and thus were unable to get one. Which is to say: things went wrong in circles because different folks had different problems, those different problems had incompatible requirements, and so things spun in circles for a number of years as every idea failed to solve the problem for everyone simultaneously, while narrowly-specified solutions were shot down for not solving enough problems.
- schoen 6y ago
  Is it still plausible that the remaining I-D will advance to an RFC?
  - sleevi 6y ago
    Perhaps? But I’m not aware of anyone (besides the DMARC crew) who could implement this, or even having been involved, so it seems mostly moot?