On 11/5/2020 8:46 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
Moving discussion of policy to a second specification would render any
base specification to be no more than effectively a table of contents
pointing to other documents, which seems to me to be a
pointless document to produce.
Separation has to have a compelling reason, mostly involving differences
in anticipated revision patterns, or fundamental differences in the
nature of their specifications. That is, they should be separate
because, in practical terms, they have to be, either now or later. NOT
making them separate will either now or later pose significant problems.
The rationale for the the current, proposed separations should be posted
in a message with a specifically-titled Subject: line and solid
explanations for the choices.
d/
ps. I think separating can be essential for some specifications. The
challenge is how and why; the answers need to be compelling. A
beginning point of consideration can be:
Tussle in cyberspace: defining tomorrow's internet
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/633025.633059
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
