On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:13 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 2:25 PM Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Having reviewed the thread that Kurt pointed me to, it seemed like this >> is >> something only one person wanted. It didn't appear to have a lot of push >> behind it. >> > > Based on my understanding of Experimental, I think a one-off feature is > fine to include, again with the understanding that it could be omitted from > a Proposed Standard version because it isn't widely useful. > Throwing it in because we were aiming at the "experimental" designation seemed to be the easiest way to resolve the non-progressing discussion when it initially cropped up in August 2017. The topic was permuted from nearest-fail to oldest-pass in January 2018 to make the calculation algorithm and interpretation of the data point a bit clearer but I don't think that anyone has changed their mind much from their positions in August 2017 - unless, as Scott pointed out, the one person who insisted on this has done so silently. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
