On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 7:33 PM Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 9:56 AM Alessandro Vesely <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Is it possible that those who raised concerns about security and privacy >> issues >> have since read the current draft version and concluded that it isn't as >> bad as >> they thought after all? >> > > I would hope if any of the people who signed up to provide text had > reached that conclusion, they'd have said so by now. > > Trent and I signed up to add more text about privacy with respect to > failure reporting, and we were in touch earlier this week. There's no text > to show yet, but we're doing the work. A reason for my post was to say > just that. > > Beyond that, I think Seth was going to do some text about security, and > Mike was coordinating a general review of the current text of all > sections. The meeting minutes would confirm; this is from memory. > > >> > I remain willing to remove references to failure reporting from the >> > main document if nobody cares enough about it to finish the document >> > that describes it. >> >> Do you reckon the WG would gain momentum in that case? >> > > Probably, but the consensus in the room in Madrid did not appear to me to > be along that path. > > -MSK > Murray, During the IETF session I volunteered to "lead" one section a week but all of the responses were that it wasn't necessary. When I posted for review of section 2 there were zero responses. I've reviewed the entire document on my own and I'm waiting for the security and privacy proposed changes to be posted to review those sections. Michael Hammer
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
