Subject: [dmarc-ietf] Consensus Sought - Ticket #82 (Deprecate rf= and maybe fo= tag) - With Interim Notes

From: Todd Herr <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 11:47:25 -0400

Greetings.

Consensus on Ticket #82 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/82>
(Deprecate rf= and maybe fo= tag) was reached during the May 27 DMARC
Interim to remove the "rf" tag from the core spec and allow for the
possibility that it could potentially be reintroduced, if needed, in the
separate failure reporting spec. (The fo tag was not discussed during this
part of the Interim).

I seek consensus from the working group at large on this ticket, and
request that a decision be made by Friday, June 11. Discussions about this
issue should be contained in this thread.

Thank you.

-- 

*Todd Herr* | Sr. Technical Program Manager
*e:* [email-masked]
*m:* 703.220.4153

This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or
proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s)
authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized
recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or
distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to
this email and then delete it from your system.

---

From: Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 19:31:50 +0200

On Fri 28/May/2021 17:47:25 +0200 Todd Herr wrote:
> 
> Consensus on Ticket #82 <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/82> (Deprecate 
> rf= and maybe fo= tag) was reached during the May 27 DMARC Interim to remove 
> the "rf" tag from the core spec and allow for the possibility that it could 
> potentially be reintroduced, if needed, in the separate failure reporting spec. 
> (The fo tag was not discussed during this part of the Interim).

Agree to totally eliminate rf= from the spec.  As an unknown tag, it won't 
invalidate existing DMARC records.

Best
Ale
--

---

From: Dotzero <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 14:34:02 -0400

On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 1:32 PM Alessandro Vesely <[email-masked]> wrote:

> (Deprecate
+1

Michael Hammer

---

From: Steven M Jones <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2021 17:31:44 -0700

On 5/28/21 08:47, Todd Herr wrote:
> possibility that it could potentially be reintroduced, if needed, in
> the separate failure reporting spec. (The fo tag was not discussed
> during this part of the Interim).

I support moving the tag to either of the associated reporting
documents, if it is included anywhere.