On 8/5/2013 6:36 PM, Murray Kucherawy wrote:
Now, if there's a problem with the standards or reality (e.g., shifting priorities) has evolved sufficiently that they need updating, then there exist public processes available to any comer for amending them. If they're broken or obsolete, let's fix them. But if that isn't happening, maybe the blame isn't rightly placed there after all.
The thread got more abstract than my jet-lag allowed me to track, but I think the above paragraph reduces things to the essential, pragmatic point.
For worthy dialectic disagreements, reality tends to impose a negotiated settlement having balance. (The only hard part, here, is determining worthiness, lest crazy extremes get assigned unwarranted worthiness... but I digress beyond the current thread into other parts of the real world.)
If someone thinks the spec should be changed, they raise the suggestion. If something looking like a rough consensus of the community agrees, then the spec is changed (and I'm counting validated errata entries as changing the spec.) Otherwise the suggestion fails.
It's an established, mundane, pragmatic process, and doesn't need philosophical debate.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
