I have two concerns.
It seems you "jumped the gun" to accept the RFC 4408 obsolete idea. Is
7208 backward compatible or not? Does DMARC require 7208 operations
or 4408 operations?
And is this -12 publication "worthy" of even considering for
implementation? Or should we wait for the more "solid specification?"
--
HLS
On 1/16/2015 11:08 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Hello Anne,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Anne Bennett <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Having just spent several hours poring over this document
(-12), I might as well send my additional minor observations.
I suspect that some of you will consider these items trivial,
but they gave me pause as I went back and forth through several
sections of the text to make sure I understood correctly. So...
[...]
I think all of the points in your three messages are good input for a
more solid specification, but the timing is unfortunate as we just got
publication approval for -12 a week ago. Making more changes
post-approval would probably not be a good idea, and by my reading
none of them rise to the level of being urgent to correct.
The plan for the DMARC working group is to consider, among other
things, whether it wants to produce a new version of the base document
on the Standards Track (because of its path to publication, -12 will
be Informational). Your points here are ideal for consideration when
the working group reaches that juncture.
Would the co-chairs object to beginning to track these items using the
WG's tracker? If and when we do decide to crack open the base
document for a Proposed Standard revision, we'd already have an
inventory of topics to consider. It would also help to keep the
discussion on this list focused on active topics now that the base
draft is "done".
-MSK
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
