On June 8, 2020 5:54:47 PM UTC, Dave Crocker <[email protected]> wrote:
>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.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.
I was trying to suggest that the topic of this ticket (defining conformance
requirements) should wait for a BCP and that as a separate topic the
terminology should be fixed in the DMARC bis effort.
I think we agree.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
