On 12/1/2020 3:17 PM, John R Levine wrote:
#39 proposes that we remove p=quarantine. I propose we leave it in, even if it is not very useful, because trying to remove it would be too confusing.
If it is confusing to remove it, it is probably confusing to keep it, albeit a different confusion.
Since protocol specifications need to be precise in their semantics, so they are understood the same way by both producers and consumers, I suspect the issue, here, is a failure to adequately specify the meaning or a failure to specify something that is mutually useful and desired.
So rather that be administratively expeditious for the working group process, I suggest this issue gets some meaningful discussion. My email archive indicates it hasn't gotten any discussion at all.
Just waving this through because it will be a hassle to deal with it invites random differences in its use, and that is death to interoperability.
d/ -- Dave Crocker dcroc...@gmail.com 408.329.0791 Volunteer, Silicon Valley Chapter American Red Cross dave.crock...@redcross.org _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
