On 6/8/2020 10:49 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think your point that the terminology needs improvement is valid, but I don't think it's this issue specifically. I think it would make this issue easier to solve in an eventual BCP, but I think it stands on it's own as something we should look into for this document, not just a future one.
Separating basic terminology from basic technical specification doesn't make much sense to me.
Terminology and its use is established in the specification of architecture, format, and protocol, not some possible, later document about operational issues.
d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
