Pete Resnick writes: > While I agree in principle, this is a distinction that is likely to > be lost on people outside of the WG. "DMARC improvements" in the > charter was meant to encompass possible changes to the DMARC spec, > deletions from the DMARC spec, and additions to the DMARC spec
My feeling is that the DMARC consortium would appreciate a change of wording like the one I proposed, and I'm all for keeping them happy and in the club. If the distinction doesn't matter to others, why not? > (e.g., extra header fields in the message meant to indicate to > implementations to do something different than the current DMARC > spec says to do). Again, I don't think that wording is calculated to instill joy at Yahoo!. I think they'd be a lot more comfortable if it were in a separate spec. It would be better if they'd speak for themselves, but AFAIK there are no Yahoo! or AOL reps hanging out here now. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
