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.
Apologies. I wasn't trying to disrupt dmarcbis finishing. Ever since I saw
consensus start to form, I started citing dmarcbis whenever explaining how
DMARC works (or should work) to people who need to know. Most are still relying
on the original language/assumptions as the basis for their knowledge, so there
are going to be questions to answer and operational practices to think about
during the transition period (forever). Is there a better place to discuss
future topics like this?
We've talked about an application statement that suggests how best to use
DMARC. But there's a giant installed base, and we would need an extremely
good reason to make an incompatible change at this point.
We spent months debating the tree walk and establishing that in nearly
every case the answers will be the same as now, or if different, no worse,
so we figured that was a change that we could get away with.
Regards,
John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
