In article <3d6f24c7-113d-a096-305e-1490c920c...@gmail.com> you write:
>On 6/8/2020 11:18 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I was trying to suggest that the topic of this ticket (defining conformance
>> requirements) should wait for a BCP
>and that as a separate topic the terminology should be fixed
On 6/8/2020 11:18 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I was trying to suggest that the topic of this ticket (defining conformance
requirements) should wait for a BCP and that as a separate topic the
terminology should be fixed in the DMARC bis effort.
I think we agree.
ahh. yes. conformance is
On June 8, 2020 5:54:47 PM UTC, Dave Crocker wrote:
>On 6/8/2020 10:49 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> I think your point that the terminology needs improvement is valid,
>but I
>> don't think it's this issue specifically. I think it would make this
>issue
>> easier to solve in an eventual BCP,
On 6/8/2020 10:49 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I think your point that the terminology needs improvement is valid, but I
don't think it's this issue specifically. I think it would make this issue
easier to solve in an eventual BCP, but I think it stands on it's own as
something we should look
On Monday, June 8, 2020 1:24:21 PM EDT Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 6/8/2020 10:21 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
> > As Chair, what I'm hearing is that this is a real issue, and may
> > need clarification in a BCP, not the primary document.
>
> Assuming the base DMARC document is modified, I'd strongly
On 6/8/2020 10:21 AM, Seth Blank wrote:
As Chair, what I'm hearing is that this is a real issue, and may
need clarification in a BCP, not the primary document.
Assuming the base DMARC document is modified, I'd strongly suggest
making these terminology distinctions in that document.
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 10:04 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 6/8/2020 9:54 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Conformance requirements to support contracting is not something the IETF
> > typically does. I think deferring this to a follow-on BCP is
> appropriate.
>
>
> While true, of course, there is a
On 6/8/2020 9:54 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Conformance requirements to support contracting is not something the IETF
typically does. I think deferring this to a follow-on BCP is appropriate.
While true, of course, there is a continuing confusion between the two
sides of protocol exchanges,
a clearer line about whether or not you've
implemented it?
David
From: dmarc on behalf of Seth Blank
Sent: 07 June 2020 22:23
To: IETF DMARC WG
Subject: [dmarc-ietf] DMARC bis: ticket 66: define what is means to implement
DMARC
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dm
In article
you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/66
>
>Many different entities participate in DMARC, and to each, there is a
>different definition of what is needed to "implement" or participate in
>DMARC.
I would rather put this in a separate non-normative BCP.
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ticket/66
Many different entities participate in DMARC, and to each, there is a
different definition of what is needed to "implement" or participate in
DMARC.
Should the spec be clear about the different participants, and what it
means for each to participate
11 matches
Mail list logo
