On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 3:13 PM John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> So it seems quite odd that for DMARC the IESG demands perfect interop, even > though we have a long history of looking at the interop/security tradeoffs > of > the things we design and letting people decide. Nothing I've said claims the IESG is demanding anything like perfect interoperability. But since interoperability is one of the key things the IETF values, I am saying that it's pretty weird to put forward a specification on the Standards Track that breaks the deployed base in significant ways without at least explaining why the WG thinks that's a reasonable thing to do, and I would expect questions downstream if we don't do that. Am I really in the rough here? Finally, we haven't given up trying to make the interop better. I think > that DKIM2 > has learned from the reasons ARC failed and is likely to succeed, but not > for a > while. > That's true, probably, but how do you propose folding that fact into this document? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
