On the subject of PCT, we did not reach agreement, we reached silence. Silence comes across as a move by the majority to silence dissenters. The chairs are empowered to decide whether this is an appropriate tactic by the majority, and whether a majority or supermajority is a sufficient approximation of consensus.
I believe that PCT is a weak solution to a real problem, and that eliminating PCT makes the problem much worse. This situation will operate against the interests of all legitimate participants. PCT needs to be improved, not discarded. There is a lot to talk about here. Doug Foster On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 4:42 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu 19/Aug/2021 21:37:06 +0200 Todd Herr wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 3:22 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > >> I agree the parsers won't break from this change, but an operator > >> currently advertising "pct=33" will suddenly stop getting what it > thought > >> it was asking for. One could argue that this constitutes "breakage". > >> > > It has been argued by some that an operator currently advertising > "pct=33" > > (or anything other than 0 or 100) was never getting what it thought it > was > > asking for in the first place, hence the discussion about removing the > pct > > tag. > > > Argued by some is not the same as rough consensus. > > > Best > Ale > -- > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
