On January 22, 2015 1:27:40 PM EST, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superu...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy ><superu...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> 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. >> > >I've consulted with the Area Director sponsoring the document's >conflict >review, and the ISE. Both of them agree that we will only make changes >approved by the ISE and only during AUTH48 at this point, and those >will be >limited to correcting serious problems that would prevent current DMARC >implementations from interacting properly. Anything else can be left >to >the DMARC working group on its standards track deliverable. > >An argument can be made that this proposed change qualifies under that >definition, so please review it and comment as to whether it satisfies >the >defect identified, or whether the change is necessary at all. I will >assume "yes" unless I hear otherwise. Again, the diff is here: > >http://www.blackops.org/~msk/dmarc/diff.html
I think what's in the diff is correct and a good clarification. I'm not sure the problem it fixes qualifies as serious, although the longer this thread goes on, the more I lean in that direction. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
