On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:18 AM, John R Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was under the impression that the reason this version's going through > the ISE is that the DMARC group isn't willing to hand change control to the > IETF. If they are willing, it makes no sense to do it outside of a WG. > It's a little late to re-hash the path by which we got here now, I think, and it was a rancorous debate. The agreement we have with the IESG is to do it via the path we're now on. Likewise, I was under the impression that publishing something through the ISE is deliberately restricted to Informational status specifically because what the document specifies might have flaws as it hasn't been subjected to any kind of IETF Review. I would agree with you if it were on the Standards Track, but it isn't. The idea of a process for ensuring that all implementations are based on -12 (or -13) and thus any two versions of the code do the same thing sounds dreadfully open-ended. I'd really like to have the goal posts sit still for a while. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
