It is not a momentum problem, it is a process problem. There are no open objections to the document language, but there are objections to the concept. Those who don't find the concept useful to themselves want to remove it as an option for others. As long as those who want no document are given a veto over those who do want a document, no document can be produced and the clock runs out as they wish.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 11:20 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote: > Don't look now, but it seems like this WG has lost momentum again. ;-) > Two months down, four to go. People who want to get failure reporting > published should probably wake up! > > An update from us: Trent now holds the pen on the privacy considerations > we said we'd deliver. You should see something shortly. > > -MSK > > On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 8:33 AM Dotzero <[email protected]> wrote: > >> The next section of the draft for us to review is: >> >> DMARC Failure Reports {#failure-reports} >> >> After reviewing this section I'm comfortable with the content/verbiage. >> >> Michael Hammer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
