We have many considerations and if we “are [near] finish” then please publish a new draft to see where are at. With so many unknowns, its fertilizes uncertainty, “desperate questions” and ignored suggestions and proposals.
I believe an update is warranted. All the best, Hector Santos > On Aug 23, 2023, at 4:10 PM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote: > > Apart from "never finish", I would contend that changes of that nature > violate the "preserve interoperability with the installed base of > DMARC systems" clause of our charter. We *can* make changes such as > this if we have a reason that's compelling enough, but as we talk > about changing the strings that we use for "p=", the arguments are > more cosmetic than truly functional, and I certainly don't see them as > compelling. > > Barry > > On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 12:11 PM John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote: >> >> It appears that Jesse Thompson <z...@fastmail.com> said: >>> I'm beginning to think that a solution to this problem is "other channels" >>> >>> Let's discuss p=interoperability, p=compliance, or p=orgname:policyname >> >> Please, no. This WG has already run a year past its sell-by date. Stuff >> like this will just tell the world that we'll never finish. >> >> R's, >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
