Accept, after checking my email further, these new ideas about the AAR. But I expect/hope this is something we can resolve quickly.
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Gene Shuman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.i >>>>> etf.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
