On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:49 AM Scott Kitterman <skl...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2020 9:38:40 AM EDT Todd Herr wrote: > > > > I don't disagree, but what I was going for here was some level of > > consistency with section 3.2 of RFC 7489. . . > And it needs to stay entirely in RFC7489 :-) > > Dale twice in his comments expresses doubt that it's possible for anyone > to > > know all PSDs; the mention of a specific PSL in the abstract was an > attempt > > to answer those doubts. > > > But how to address Dale's concerns about how one knows all PSDs? > > To the extent this is a problem, it's RFC 7489's problem. This document > leverages it's existing definitions. That's intentional. While the > current > RFC 7489 definitions aren't ideal, as an extension to that work, I don't > think > it make sense to try and fix it here. That's work for 7489bis. Agreed. Dale's concern is a non sequitur. We can always invoke the ghost of DBOUND-past :-D --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
