----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Kitterman" <scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com>
To: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: not really to do with Re: WG Review: Domain-based Message
Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (dmarc)
<snip>
I think, despite all your assertion by distant authorities, it may be
that
something involving U/I requirements (not design, I agree that's out
of scope)
may be part of the least bad solution we have to the problems the WG
is going
I agree. I think that the IETF is competent to specify what a user
should see, just not how to see it. Thus we could require that the
user's attention is drawn to a difference between From: and Sender:, or
that a field has been authenticated to some level or has failed
authentication and so on.
As to how, I was watching the Tour de France transit Yorkshire and was
reminded that, to a Frenchman, a waved yellow flag means danger, whereas
the locals probably saw it as a friendly greeting; that is the sort of
UI, transferred, conceptually, to the screen of an MUA, that I do not
think the IETF has expertise in.
Tom Petch
to be chartered to solve.
I'm not saying it is certain to be in the solution scope, but it
shouldn't
require a recharter if it turns out to be the case. I don't like any
of the
possible solutions so far (including adding U/I requirements). I'm
not
prejudging anything, I just don't want to prematurely preclude
options.
So this is still a discussion about the charter and what should be in
scope.
Scott K