> On Oct 17, 2014, at 2:09 PM, Ned Freed <ned.fr...@mrochek.com> wrote: > > So let me see if I understand you correctly. You were surprised that I posted > a query (not an assertion) about something being in scope in my capacity > as a WG participant rather than as chair. And you are concerned that > there be effective scope management.
Correct. > > But at the same time you're concerned that we not tighten the scope so much as > to exclude implmentation guidance that you view as an important tool in > addressing DMARC issues. Correct, and I believe that is consistent with my concern that there be effective scope management. > If that's correct, then I confess I completely fail to understand your > concern/point here. That is probably because the topic at hand was SPF. To clarify, I was not trying to weigh-in on SPF at all. I was raising an orthogonal issue, motivated by how the SPF topic was being discussed vis-a-vis scope and charter, but entirely unrelated to SPF. > The reason I posted as a participant and not as chair was > precisely because I *didn't* want to make an ex cathedra statement about the > appropriateness of discussing this SPF issue. I appreciate your approach. I was seeking clarity. I was not trying to insinuate that you should not have commented as a participant. I just wanted to be sure I understood who was helping us manage scope effectively and you clarified that. It’s all good. Just chalk this up to me being new to this WG. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
