As Chair, I'm closing ticket #63 and recording consensus of the group as leaving this as-is, any guidance around this matter should be left to a BCP or guidance document.
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:10 PM Dotzero <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 5:57 PM Tim Wicinski <[email protected]> wrote: > >> (with no hats) >> >> p=none with no reporting is fine, and we should keep it. >> >> One thing the WG could do is a BCP document on operational recommendations >> where there are certain suggestions like this. >> >> tim >> >> +1 >> > > Michael Hammer > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > -- *Seth Blank* | VP, Standards and New Technologies *e:* [email protected] *p:* 415.273.8818 This email and all data transmitted with it contains confidential and/or proprietary information intended solely for the use of individual(s) authorized to receive it. If you are not an intended and authorized recipient you are hereby notified of any use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the information included in this transmission is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email and then delete it from your system.
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
