On October 24, 2023 3:38:54 PM UTC, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 9:07 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> >wrote: > >> I don't think this is consistent with the IETF's mandate to provide >> documents >> which promote interoperability. I do not, however, plan to file an appeal >> about it. >> > >Two things to say about that: > >(1) This is Francesca's determination of the consensus of this WG. It is >not a determination of the consensus of the IETF or anyone else at this >point, nor has any determination been made about that position as viable >IETF output (which, I would argue, is for the IESG to decide). > >(2) For an appeal to be sustained, you'd need to present evidence that her >evaluation of WG consensus is in error. The question here is not whether >WG consensus aligns with the IETF's mandate.
My understanding of IETF consensus is that technical objections have been addressed. I think this is critical to the difference between IETF consensus and voting. It's not just 'most people think X'. I don't think that the technical objections have been addressed. That said, I understand why we're where we are. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
