On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Jim Fenton <fen...@bluepopcorn.net> wrote:
> It wasn't meant as a restriction. I was trying to decide on the right > normative word to use here, and the IETF usage of SHOULD is probably too > strong. I'd be happy with a MAY there; I don't think it hurts to point out > that it's a good thing to do, from the standpoint of both DNS load and also > extra lookups for the verifier. > Jim, what if section 11.3.2 has a specific clause around one output of the experiment being guidance on AS/AMS d=/s= binding language?
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
