On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Seth Blank <[email protected]> wrote:
> There has been an on-list discussion about this, but in it no consensus > was reached: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/ > KvpNpf_9ywZpK6oMcwJ1OJthiHM > > Off list the consensus from those I've spoken with (which is obviously not > necessarily representative of the WG) is that we should drop the language > suggesting coverage of the AAR by the AMS, as this adds no value when the > AAR is required to be signed by the AS. > > Personally, I think removing this (so only the AS covers the AAR) > simplifies the spec and implementations without removing value from the > protocol. > I concur. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
