I’ve reviewed the diff between -12 and -13 and I’m comfortable with the changes.
Mike From: dmarc [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 1:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [dmarc-ietf] questions on the spec, was ... and two more tiny nits, while I'm at it On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I am asking the IESG and the ISE what the process is for making such adjustments now. Mainly my resistance to further change comes from the fact that we've done last calls of varying kinds on this document more times than I can count. It really is time to put the non-IETF version to bed and hand it off, even with its weaknesses, and let the standards process take it from there. There's a working group already chartered to do exactly that; in fact, that was one of the premises of creating that working group. I've consulted with the Area Director sponsoring the document's conflict review, and the ISE. Both of them agree that we will only make changes approved by the ISE and only during AUTH48 at this point, and those will be limited to correcting serious problems that would prevent current DMARC implementations from interacting properly. Anything else can be left to the DMARC working group on its standards track deliverable. An argument can be made that this proposed change qualifies under that definition, so please review it and comment as to whether it satisfies the defect identified, or whether the change is necessary at all. I will assume "yes" unless I hear otherwise. Again, the diff is here: http://www.blackops.org/~msk/dmarc/diff.html -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
