Hello Anne, On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Anne Bennett <a...@encs.concordia.ca> wrote:
> Having just spent several hours poring over this document > (-12), I might as well send my additional minor observations. > I suspect that some of you will consider these items trivial, > but they gave me pause as I went back and forth through several > sections of the text to make sure I understood correctly. So... > [...] > I think all of the points in your three messages are good input for a more solid specification, but the timing is unfortunate as we just got publication approval for -12 a week ago. Making more changes post-approval would probably not be a good idea, and by my reading none of them rise to the level of being urgent to correct. The plan for the DMARC working group is to consider, among other things, whether it wants to produce a new version of the base document on the Standards Track (because of its path to publication, -12 will be Informational). Your points here are ideal for consideration when the working group reaches that juncture. Would the co-chairs object to beginning to track these items using the WG's tracker? If and when we do decide to crack open the base document for a Proposed Standard revision, we'd already have an inventory of topics to consider. It would also help to keep the discussion on this list focused on active topics now that the base draft is "done". -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
