Identity consensus and working group direction

As stated previously, the chairs see very strong support for 2821 
identities and somewhat strong support for 2822 identities.  Such 
strong cases have been made for each that many favoring 2821 identities 
see 2822 identities as being important for secondary consideration and 
vice versa.  However, the participants of this group have shown a rough 
consensus favoring the use of 2821 identities first and 2822 identities 
second.
Though there have been discussions around handling both sets of 
identities, given the lack of compromise from many of the proposal 
authors and the short schedule specified by our milestones, it is best 
that this working group first concentrate on creating a DNS RR 
addressing the 2821 identities and then proceed to consideration of 
2822 identities.
In addition to facilitating concensus in the group and to ensuring a 
fair and open process, the chairs are also responsible for the 
technical competence and coherence of any output by the group. It is 
the considered judgment of the chairs that the working group must 
develop a single policy framework (a single language for describing 
sender policy language and a single DNS RR to contain policies written 
in that language) to be used by both the 2821- and 2822-based 
mechanisms. Accordingly, as the working group completes its work on the 
2821-based mechanism, the policy framework developed must be adequate 
to reasonably support the needs of a 2822-based mechanism.
There is also very strong consensus for the need of accreditation 
services and changes in the methods of forwarding email.  Therefore it 
is perfectly reasonable for MARID to account for such mechanisms; 
however, their definition is beyond the scope of the MARID charter.
-andy & mtr