Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
Informational works for me if that helps moves things forward. I also agree with Mr. Crocker's thesis on teasing about the PSL from DMARC, but that should not hinder forward progress on PSD. tim On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:50 PM Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:16 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: > >> On Thu 27/Feb/2020 06:30:59 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> > >> > With a completed (and now seven month old) Working Group Last Call on >> the >> > PSD document, and as far as I can see no sustained objection, we should >> > proceed toward publication. >> >> Great! >> > > +1 > > > I will put this question to the working group: Can we solve this problem >> by >> > switching the document to Informational status, and can the working >> group >> > accept that outcome? >> >> If publishing as experimental would further delay publication, I'd accept >> informational. >> > > Also agree. > > --Kurt > ___ > dmarc mailing list > dmarc@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc > ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:16 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: > On Thu 27/Feb/2020 06:30:59 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > > > With a completed (and now seven month old) Working Group Last Call on the > > PSD document, and as far as I can see no sustained objection, we should > > proceed toward publication. > > Great! > +1 > I will put this question to the working group: Can we solve this problem > by > > switching the document to Informational status, and can the working group > > accept that outcome? > > If publishing as experimental would further delay publication, I'd accept > informational. > Also agree. --Kurt ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
On Thu 27/Feb/2020 06:30:59 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > With a completed (and now seven month old) Working Group Last Call on the > PSD document, and as far as I can see no sustained objection, we should > proceed toward publication. Great! > I will put this question to the working group: Can we solve this problem by > switching the document to Informational status, and can the working group > accept that outcome? IMHO, experimental is appropriate. There are three competing methods; maybe it will be worth to maintain all of them indefinitely, maybe some of them will turn out to be impractical or not used. That's the experimental question. The sooner we run it the sooner the response. If publishing as experimental would further delay publication, I'd accept informational. However, I don't understand why. jm2c Ale -- ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
Re: [dmarc-ietf] Comment on DMARCbis, was draft-ietf-dmarc-psd
On Thu 27/Feb/2020 05:57:35 +0100 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:44 AM Alessandro Vesely wrote: >> >> There are quite some issues about DMARC. Let me mention aggregate report >> format first, as this brings out a third thing which can be done in >> parallel, namely to publish http://dmarc.org/dmarc-xml/0.2. >> [...] >> > > Please make sure that these are all recorded in the tracker so they can be > discussed and factored in when the time comes. I've added tickets 31, 32, and 33. The first two ones are Freddie's entries I found walking top down http://bit.ly/dmarc-rpt-schema . Then I stopped adding his entries, as I don't fully understand some details. Freddie, please get there[*] and edit as needed. #33 is the proposal to substitute the element with the URI of the spec, so as to let automatic parsers understand the syntax. When the WG agrees on XML format details, we can publish the resulting schema at http://dmarc.org/dmarc-xml/0.2. Best Ale -- [*] https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc/ ___ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
