On April 21, 2023 3:57:54 PM UTC, Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: >On Fri 21/Apr/2023 05:41:03 +0200 Scott Kitterman wrote: >> On April 20, 2023 4:18:08 PM UTC, Dotzero <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 11:38 AM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> It appears that Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> said: >>>> >>>>> IMHO at least an appendix should say that if you can't do anything better >>>>> you have to rewrite From: with examples of legitimate display-phrase, >>>>> expanding a bit the first bullet in Section 11.4. That can also be a good >>>>> place to explain the kind of damage DMARC causes. >>> >>>> Absolutely not. This sort of thing is utterly outside the scope of our job >>>> and wasting time on it just further delays our already extremely late work. >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> There are many things John and I may disagree on but he clearly understands >>> why avoiding scope creep (and bad ideas) is important. >> >> Definitely agree with both of you on this. > > >Eeeh, what an uprising! I just proposed a couple of paragraphs, not a new >rocket science theory. > >As for the badness, why wouldn't a concise but detailed explanation be better >than obscure forbiddings and dark forebodings, such as MUST NOT be used by >humans or interoperability will break down? > >BTW, what's the outcome of that discussion?
That, specifically is a question for the chairs, so no idea. There are a nearly infinite set of few paragraphs we could write that would make things clearer. If we ever want to finish this, some of them need to be out of scope. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
