On Saturday, August 30, 2014 10:12:32 Tim Draegen wrote: > 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.
Since the base spec isn't published yet, it'd be nice to see a nit like this resolved before publication. Scott K > > > 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 _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
