Dave Crocker writes: > Well, the language I offered was also produced from pickiness. In > reaction to a possible misunderstanding of the earlier draft > charter text.
"Incremental version" is not a "term of art", then? (That occurred to me after hitting send.) Surely this terminological problem (foreseeing updates to another WG's -- or external body's -- in-progress specification, but not stepping on their toes) has been encountered by working groups before? (If nobody has examples off hand, I'll go research other charters for similar language, no reply necessary.) _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
