On Saturday, August 27, 2022 6:22:34 PM EDT Barry Leiba wrote: > Seth is right here: Doug, your message doesn't comply with what I've > asked people to do, in two ways: it's asking for a change to something > we already have consensus on and it's not proposing specific text > changes. > > That said, there are two mitigating factors. For the latter, the > request is specific enough that I think there's enough detail to > discuss it. > > For the former, the PSD= feature is new enough, and our participation > level has gotten low enough that it's difficult to say how strong the > consensus is on that point, and I think it's reasonable to have > another look. I've discussed this with Seth since his message below, > and I'm allowing this issue to be opened for discussion, BUT... > > ...BUT let's keep the discussion focused and productive: I will cut it > off at some point, so it's important that everyone in the discussion > make their points clear and concise. > > John has replied that this is incompatible. Yes, but PSD= is also, at > some level, incompatible... though far less so. So here's one thing > I'd like to see discussed: > > - Doug, please clearly and concisely explain what benefit this has > over the current PSD= tag that makes the incompatibility with existing > implementations worth it. > > - If you disagree with Doug's proposal, please clearly and concisely > explain why the benefit he is proposing is not useful enough to > introduce the incompatibility.
I did read it. I see zero benefit to it. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
