On 5/29/2019 1:13 PM, 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?
"No support at all?" For the record, I support the "split." But I
won't care it is remains. I just think it will complicate a
specification and extend the future work of completing a DKIM Policy
Model proposed standard which is in need of a tremendous amount of work.
--
HLS
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
