On June 25, 2020 11:04:43 PM UTC, Dave Crocker <dcroc...@gmail.com> wrote: >On 6/25/2020 3:58 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Why would I be expressing an interpretation of the charter that I >didn't think is correct? > >That's not what i said. > >I mean that you are asserting a requirement as if it were established, >based on your interpretation. the requirement is not established and, >of course, i believe it won't be. > > >> Absent direction from the chairs, of course I'm going to operate on >the basis of my interpretation (although I think it's less >interpretation and more reading what's explicitly there, I'd imagine >you would view it differently). > >The point is needing to be more tentative. Opinions are of course >fine. The state of being an opinion is transitive. It flows onto any >assertions made based on it.
I think the bar to convince me that it's okay to throw away aligning to 5322.From is in scope for the working group is really high when the charter defines DMARC as "Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance (DMARC) uses existing mail authentication technologies (SPF and DKIM) to extend validation to the RFC5322.From field". So far, no one has presented any arguments to suggest an alternative view is correct. I think what I think and I don't feel any need to be disingenuous about it. That doesn't mean I won't change my mind later if someone makes a convincing argument that an alternative view is correct. Don't confuse having a firm opinion with being unwilling to consider alternative views. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
