On Thursday, August 18, 2022 9:34:47 AM EDT John R Levine wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2022, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > I can't remember if this was discussed previously. I was just responding > > to the proposed change. > > Understood, but I am concerned that we are spinning our wheels on changes > proposed by individuals that have no support from anyone else. It would > be nice if we could wrap up the work we've agreed to and ship our > documents.
I agree. The one thing I think would be useful would be to move more of the text relating to failure reporting out of DMARCbis and into the failure reporting draft. I theory, I think mention of failure reporting in DMARCbis could (and probably should) be reduced to a small section with a reference to the failure reporting document. It's very much a niche capability and I think the less said about it in DMARCbis, the better. Many consumers of DMARCbis document will not care about it at all. If there's any interest in this, I can propose specifics. It looks to me like it's virtually all cut/paste. Scott K _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
