For routine, remote is perfect but I’d imagine hums leave no doubt in Prague and a chance for rapport to be established. As an observer this proces made me tense and annoyed at time. Myn2 cents is go to Prague. It’s a gorgeous city. This group has a gruff vibe in the tradition of Usenet but our tribe tends to forget and forgive setting the stage for you to work more smoothly together. It’s like when the godfather called in the 5 families. On Nov 1, 2023, at 3:21 PM, Barry Leiba <barryle...@computer.org> wrote:
The sense I’m getting is to cancel the session in Prague. I’ll do that tomorrow (Thursday) morning SFO time unless someone screams loudly with a convincing reason that we need to keep the session.
Barry 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
|
_______________________________________________
dmarc mailing list
dmarc@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
