> [removed the SPAM tag from subject] Which the mailing list put right back on. It seems that something in the charter text is causing that, and I've asked the Secretariat IT support to look into it. The worst part of this is that none of the charter discussion is in the archive.
I have put the proposed charter in the appsawg wiki: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/appsawg/trac/wiki/DMARC > I'm not sure if this belongs in the charter, but in any case I wonder if > it creates market confusion to pursue both an Informational Independent > Submission and a Standards-track working group RFC. Are there other > examples of where that has been done? As a counter-example, note that > the publication of DomainKeys (RFC 4870) was delayed until DKIM > published to avoid confusion, and there the names were somewhat different. HTTP 1.0 (RFC 1945) and OAUTH 1.0 (RFC 5849), to name two. Barry _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
