I don't have particularly strong opinions here. I can see no reason for the d= to differ, but also no harm in allowing it do so. So I think the question of what to do here is slightly more philosophical. I think I generally fall on the side of reducing user flexibility when nothing is actively gained as opposed to granting user flexibility when there is no harm. But again, no real strong opinion on the matter.
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 1, 2017 11:48 PM, "Seth Blank" <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm slightly confused. > > I have a strong sense that the d= tag should be the same between the AS > and AMS within an ADMD. I can absolutely see why the s= might legitimately > vary. However, I can't seem the harm in the d= tag differing. If the > signatures validate, why should this matter? > > > That was our thought when writing the spec which is why the spec does not > speak to the issue (should be something in the usage doc IMO). I think Gene > raised the concern...Gene? > > --Kurt > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
