It appears that Brotman, Alex <alex_brot...@comcast.com> said: >To summarize, > >We'd like to see extensions available both below the "feedback" and "record" >elements. The -02 draft only has it below the "feedback" element. I agree >that all >elements, each time they are utilized, should mention a reference as to how >they are to be utilized. > >We'd also like to have extensions go through an IETF process, however, we also >understand that we cannot exclude third parties from defining/deploying their >own >extensions. I suppose we could tell report receivers they "MUST" ignore any >extensions which are not IETF-approved, though that seems a bit heavy-handed.
Remember, IETF standards are about how to interoperate. If people want to interpret private extensions, that is fine so long as the private ones don't interfere with public ones. While we would like it if people published the details of their private extensions, just knowing the names is useful since that keeps names from colliding. So we should set up a FCFS registry for extensions, specification would be nice but not required. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
