On Aug 29, 2014, at 11:39 PM, Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: > Since this is the WG list, I'm not sure if this is still the right list for > issues with the base spec or not, but here goes ...
Right list. Just to set precedent, any thoughts on this issue will be captured in the WG's issue tracker. Once the WG shifts to considering specification changes (next year), we'll bring it up again and fold necessary changes into spec. =- Tim > The definition of "fo" in Section 5.2, General Record Format, allows both > values of "0" and "1" to be specified. It was suggested to me offlist that > this > might not be appropriate, so I thought it worth a discussion. > > Does anyone who's implemented "fo" have a problem with both "0" and "1" being > specified? If it is somehow problematic, then the base spec ought to say so. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
