[trimming redundant Ccs] On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 9:41 AM Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to first thank Francesca for taking the time to review where the > working group is as far as consensus. > +1, that was a lot to sift through. The short version of the non-normative language should be in the document > itself but I believe the issues resulting from deviating from the normative > "SHOULD NOT" deserve a fuller discussion in a separate document. > What's the likelihood that a separate document would be consulted if it existed? I think I'd prefer to see exposition on this topic in an appendix of the -bis document. I'm not convinced the WG has the energy to produce another Informational just about this, covering the stuff you listed. I'm also wondering whether documents like RFCs 6377 and 7960 already sufficiently cover the issues we're talking about here. I suppose we haven't discussed the mitigations that are in play already (even though people don't like them). -MSK, participating
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
