On Friday, July 12, 2019 1:22:21 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Wednesday, June 26, 2019 5:21:14 PM EDT Seth Blank wrote: > > As Secretary, there are three items that have not yet reached consensus > > that must be resolved during WGLC: > > > > 1. What further context is needed in the introduction > > 2. If explicit call outs to ICANN/limited operator capacity to implement > > are needed > > 3. If an np= tag is needed to allow PSD functioning for only NXDOMAINs > > It's been a pretty quiet last call. I think the document itself is probably > in pretty good shape with these questions as outliers. Shortly I plan to > send a separate email on each of these with my perspective on both the > issue and my read of the discussion so far so we can focus on driving each > question to closure.
I think we've had some good discussion since Friday. Here's where I think we are now: #1. I think we incorporate both the specific suggestions Tim Draegen made earlier in the month and we should incorporate changes from Kurt Andersen in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/7Qjo6oEoUpPGvCWVFZHyBeCDI44 : Drop the sentence from section 1, make the 2.2 change, drop willing to accept in 2.6 (which I think cures the section 4 comment), and make the 3.5 change. Addition of np is covered in #3. #2. I think we've worked out text and we just need to add it. #3. I think we're close on text with the only open questions being does np fall back to sp or p and do people agree with the Appendix A words. Pretty close. If the group accepts my rationale for the sp fallback, then I think it's pretty clear what changes the document needs after last call. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
