> On Apr 14, 2023, at 7:43 PM, Mark Alley > <mark.alley=40tekmarc....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > Its not ideal, but I could live with that. That's somewhat less ambiguous > than [general purpose] domains, but still ambiguous; the Appendix or the same > section could easily clarify "unrestrictive usage policies", and then maybe > the appendix, as you say, could cover the known issues and workarounds. > > If I'm being honest, given the different versions put forth so far, it seems > like this type of language is closer to the compromise on the > interoperability statement. The other versions say relatively the same thing. > > - Mark Alley
I think what Mark’s saying isn’t perfect for but I think it can get the rough consensus we’re seeking. That’s my humble opinion. Neil _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
