> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Scott Kitterman > Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 2:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [marf] Comments on draft-ietf-marf-spf-reporting > > My preference would be to leave it here until 4408bis has some traction, but > I'm OK with either 1 or 2. 4408 does allow unknown modifiers (unknown > mechanisms aren't allowed), the registry just ensures the namespace is managed > to avoid collisions.
Ah, OK. That makes life easier. Then it's really just a matter of whether or not it's acceptable to do something in MARF that really APPSAWG or SPFBIS should be handling. _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
