I also very much believe this language should be removed, as it's unnecessary complexity.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:07 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
