Informational works for me if that helps moves things forward. I also agree with Mr. Crocker's thesis on teasing about the PSL from DMARC, but that should not hinder forward progress on PSD.
tim On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:50 PM Kurt Andersen (b) <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:16 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu 27/Feb/2020 06:30:59 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> > >> > With a completed (and now seven month old) Working Group Last Call on >> the >> > PSD document, and as far as I can see no sustained objection, we should >> > proceed toward publication. >> >> Great! >> > > +1 > > > I will put this question to the working group: Can we solve this problem >> by >> > switching the document to Informational status, and can the working >> group >> > accept that outcome? >> >> If publishing as experimental would further delay publication, I'd accept >> informational. >> > > Also agree. > > --Kurt > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
