On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, at 20:29, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 3:13 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 2:25 PM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote: >>> Having reviewed the thread that Kurt pointed me to, it seemed like this is >>> something only one person wanted. It didn't appear to have a lot of push >>> behind it. >> >> Based on my understanding of Experimental, I think a one-off feature is fine >> to include, again with the understanding that it could be omitted from a >> Proposed Standard version because it isn't widely useful. > > Throwing it in because we were aiming at the "experimental" designation > seemed to be the easiest way to resolve the non-progressing discussion when > it initially cropped up in August 2017. The topic was permuted from > nearest-fail to oldest-pass in January 2018 to make the calculation algorithm > and interpretation of the data point a bit clearer but I don't think that > anyone has changed their mind much from their positions in August 2017 - > unless, as Scott pointed out, the one person who insisted on this has done so > silently. I don't think any of my objections to being unable to distinguish between "sealed and didn't modify" and "sealed and modified" cases have changed. Having said that, it's easier to add an additional field than to take something out, so I don't object to simplifying and seeing what happens. Particularly since we're experimental. Bron. -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, FastMail Pty Ltd br...@fastmailteam.com
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
