On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:14 PM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> >Do people concur with this change, or something close to it? > > I'm OK with it, but to the meta-question, I realize the practical > issues involved with yanking something out of the production queue, > but in this case I wonder if that's not the right thing to do. > > There's no great hurry in getting the DMARC document published, since > nothing currently depends on it, and if reasonable people are finding > holes in it that make it hard to write interoperable code, I'd rather > fix the holes than add lengthy errata or recycle later. > I am asking the IESG and the ISE what the process is for making such adjustments now. Mainly my resistance to further change comes from the fact that we've done last calls of varying kinds on this document more times than I can count. It really is time to put the non-IETF version to bed and hand it off, even with its weaknesses, and let the standards process take it from there. There's a working group already chartered to do exactly that; in fact, that was one of the premises of creating that working group. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
