On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote:
> We have a good set of comments on -15, and thanks, everyone, for that. > Kurt and Seth, please make the changes that make sense based on the > discussion, and publish -16 when you've done that. When I see -16 go > up, I'll put it into working-group last call. > > At the same time, I'll also ask the DNS directorate to have a look at > it. As has been noted, we don't think there's an issue here, but I do > agree that it's better to alert the directorate to take a gander. > I have been advocating for punting some of Jim's points on the basis that we don't want to derail the experiment that is ARC. I believe we punted on some of Bron's points as well early on. I've taken this position because I think the thing that's critical here is to determine if ARC, in operation, provides any meaningful signal (or indeed, any damage) that we need to capture to solve the problem this working group is chartered to address. I'm assuming that we will return and give these deferred points due consideration when we complete the experiment and come back around to doing a standards track version. Note that "due consideration" only guarantees discussion; it does not guarantee that we'll come back and change things. Am I wrong about any of this? Should we be sticking some of these deferred items in to the WG tracker so we don't forget about them later? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
