On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:50 PM Seth Blank <seth= [email protected]> wrote:
> As Chairs, we'd like to push for more discussion of this topic. > > I've heard some discussion that this distinction belongs in a BCP, not the > base spec, but regardless of where text lands (and it certainly shouldn't > be normative language) the Chairs strongly believe that having rough > consensus on clear definitions is key to progressing the bis effort > effectively. We strongly agree with Dave Crocker's position here: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/XXE3r5FUozl6LVohv8rTkn5QG4E/ > > Original thread: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/8f3AMoQ_7e3i7zEFTTtK-KnDgzI/ > Follow up thread from Todd Herr: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/zHti6fc5Rs4SmfMB3jVK_DQnemA/ > If you want to ruminate for a while on where such text should land, you're free to cultivate it in a new individual submission that the WG tracks, with perhaps no initial intent to ever publish it. There's also the working group wiki page, on or below which such text could be maintained: https://trac.ietf.org/trac/dmarc -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
