Ack - consider it done and I'll report as such in this morning's session. Thanks for weighing in.
--Kurt On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Gene Shuman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
