Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)
draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-41
Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
Announcement
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dmarc-chairs@ietf.org, dmarc@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, superuser@gmail.com, tjw.ietf@gmail.com
Subject: Protocol Action: 'Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-40.txt)
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting, and Conformance
(DMARC)'
(draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis-40.txt) as Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Domain-based Message Authentication,
Reporting & Conformance Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Murray Kucherawy and Orie Steele.
A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmarc-dmarcbis/
Ballot Text
Technical Summary
This document describes the Domain-based Message Authentication,
Reporting, and Conformance (DMARC) protocol.
DMARC permits the owner of an email's Author Domain (#author-domain)
to enable validation of the domain's use, to indicate the Domain
Owner's (#domain-owner) or Public Suffix Operator's (#public-suffix-
operator) message handling preference regarding failed validation,
and to request reports about the use of the domain name. Mail
receiving organizations can use this information when evaluating
handling choices for incoming mail.
This document obsoletes RFCs 7489 and 9091.
Working Group Summary
This document took a very long time to develop. The working
group experienced long periods of dormancy. Still, consensus
was eventually reached on this version.
There is firm dissent from one or two participants about whether
this should be on the standards track, but they concede that they
are in the rough.
Document Quality
DMARC is widely implemented, both commercially and in open
source, and is supported by an industry pushing its value
as an anti-abuse solution. Some governments have declared it
"mandatory to implement".
No particular reviews are outstanding or required.
Personnel
The Document Shepherd for this document is Tim Wicinski. The Responsible
Area Director is Murray Kucherawy.
RFC Editor Note