On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:43 PM, Gene Shuman <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > I'm taking the opposite approach: There might be some utility later to them being different, so why proscribe it just because we don't see anything to gain when the protocol is nascent? I'd rather lock things down later, or lock them down as a local policy matter, than do MUST NOT in the protocol document absent a compelling reason. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
