On Oct 26, 2011, at 12:43 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of J.D. >> Falk >> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 4:37 PM >> To: ARF mailing list >> Subject: Re: [marf] New Version Notification for >> draft-ietf-marf-redaction-01.txt >> >> It seems like most of the objections/concerns regarding this draft have >> focused on section 2, the Recommended Practice. I'm not in a position >> to effectively defend that section; like the rest of the draft, it was >> copied from draft-ietf-marf-dkim-reporting when that document was >> split. >> >> I'd hoped that other Recommended Practices might be added to the draft, >> but none have been offered thus far. >> >> So...should we remove section 2 entirely? If the consensus is to keep >> it, perhaps someone more familiar with that specific method could take >> over authorship of the draft. > > I must've missed it. What are the arguments with what Section 2 says, and/or > what other alternatives have been proposed?
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01266.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01048.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01047.html https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/marf/current/msg01042.html I could swear there was more, but can't find it in the archives now. -- J.D. Falk the leading purveyor of industry counter-rhetoric solutions _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
