Realized I think we're going in circles. Just posted text that is status quo that I believe already addresses Michael's concern.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:38 AM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 9:32 AM Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Why is this controversial? Seriously. What is controversial about saying >> that the a report should authenticate? The onus is on the people who say it >> does not to lay out the case for why it's not a problem, not me. #98 has a >> simple piece of text to remedy this. it's 2021. You don't use >> unauthenticated data if you can possibly help it. >> > I'm not taking a position at this point on the issue, but I think you > should expect that this will come up in external reviews. If consensus is > to maintain the status quo, we might want to say so explicitly (and why) > rather than saying nothing, as the latter might be interpreted as it having > gotten no consideration at all. > > -MSK > -- *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
