On 6/1/2019 11:38 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
My understanding matched Dave's originally, but then I found this:
https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-processing-rfc-errata-ietf-stream/
It's not surprising this sort of need to record a deficiency for later
handling has come up before, and we've adapted a way to deal with it.
Interesting. How does this change based on the document status?
Would you care if its informational? Normally, you would not? But
DMARC has broke the mold.
We seek an IETF standardization of a DKIM Policy system. We need to
finish this work. Right now, the DMARC method has the attention.
There is going to be lots of work here and unless the 3rd party
question is addressed, I expect the same ADSP scrutiny for DMARC.
I agree any suggestions for Informational Status document change
should be held for the PS work.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
