On Oct 29, 2023, at 7:57 AM, Dotzero <dotz...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm starting this in a separate thread that I want to keep for ONLY
the following question:
Do we want to use the session we have scheduled at IETF 118 to talk
about the issue that clearly is still in discussion about adding a tag
to specify which authentication mechanism(s) to use when evaluating
DMARC?
Or shall I cancel the 118 session and just let the discussion continue
on the mailing list?
And being clear here: the "eliminate SPF entirely" suggestion is
definitely out, failing rough consensus. We're *only* talking about
the suggestion to add a tag to specify what the sender wants.
Barry
Let the discussion continue on the list. Personally I think there has been enough discussion that there can be a call for consensus.
Barry, you think there’s rough consensus now? If so then by all means count asap and get closure. Even those who disagree respect the process and will keep their party dry to fight another day. I don’t know exactly what rough consensus is no I know it when I see it, to paraphrase Brandeis. And we all know what it looks like. Accepting defeat even when we think we are fire right is part of what makes this country great. We concede. That’s honor. |
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
