> CURRENT: > Accordingly, DMARC is being rechartered to publish a document that moves RFC > 8617 to historical/obsolete status, including prose describing the history > and current status of the work.
> ## Publishing a document allows for more elaborated considerations to document > the reasoning and ** lack of operational impacts ** for this specific case. I > don’t know if that work already started, but if the prose is condense enough, > proceeding with a “status change” may be more appropriate. Maybe better to > leave the decision about whether to proceed with a new document or a status > change open in the charter. I'll note two things here: 1. We're likely to have more text and more involved discussion than is appropriate for a status-change document, so we're almost certain to want an RFC here. 2. The current text says "publish a document", not "publish an RFC". A status-change document *is* a document. So we are not limiting anything here in that regard. Barry, DMARC chair _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
