This draft has not been submitted to the IETF for peer review (nowhere to be found on https://tools.ietf.org/).
As the format makes it look like a IETF draft, as the format is an IETF draft, is it going to be submitted to the IETF for peer review?
This especially as the marketing material being floated around make it all sound that this is all IETF approved... especially considering DKIM (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6376), DMARC (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489) and SPF (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7208) even have RFC status, it would be good for this proposal (even though send out through marketing channels as "DMARC 2.0" goes through the same process and importantly: peer review....
This draft has not been submitted to the IETF for peer review (nowhere to be found on https://tools.ietf.org/).
As the format makes it look like a IETF draft, as the format is an IETF draft, is it going to be submitted to the IETF for peer review?
This especially as the marketing material being floated around make it all sound that this is all IETF approved... especially considering DKIM (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6376), DMARC (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7489) and SPF (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7208) even have RFC status, it would be good for this proposal (even though send out through marketing channels as "DMARC 2.0" goes through the same process and importantly: peer review....