Apart from "never finish", I would contend that changes of that nature violate the "preserve interoperability with the installed base of DMARC systems" clause of our charter. We *can* make changes such as this if we have a reason that's compelling enough, but as we talk about changing the strings that we use for "p=", the arguments are more cosmetic than truly functional, and I certainly don't see them as compelling.
Barry On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 12:11 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: > > It appears that Jesse Thompson <z...@fastmail.com> said: > >I'm beginning to think that a solution to this problem is "other channels" > > > >Let's discuss p=interoperability, p=compliance, or p=orgname:policyname > > Please, no. This WG has already run a year past its sell-by date. Stuff > like this will just tell the world that we'll never finish. > > R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
