Great. AFAIK, this was the last remaining technical issue in the spec. I'm very happy to see things reach this point.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 9:58 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
