On 5/29/19 10:13 AM, John R Levine wrote: >> You seem to be suggesting that the standards-track DMARCbis should be >> different because an informational, non-WG RFC has already been >> published. From a process standpoint that's bad; standards-track RFCs >> should go through exactly the same process regardless of whether or not >> they were previously published as Informational. > > As far as I can tell your proposal to break the document in two has > gotten no support at all. Can we stop now? >
This was about a broader process issue and not specifically about splitting the document into parts (I should have changed the subject line). But yes, we can stop talking about the document split. _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
