Yes, I think Mike is confusing "Standards Track" with "Internet
Standard". There's no requirement that a Proposed Standard that's
based on an Experimental or Informational starting point have any
particular relation to the starting point, and we're free to do
anything the working group thinks is
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>The status we're going for is "Proposed Standard". Note the word
>"Proposed"; a document seeking this status doesn't need to be bulletproof ...
I would expect a great deal of institutional pushback at a change directly
from informational to full
Sigh...
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 2:50 PM Murray S. Kucherawy
wrote:
> The status we're going for is "Proposed Standard". Note the word
> "Proposed"; a document seeking this status doesn't need to be bulletproof
> out the door, as some evolution based on experience is required. The
> standard
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:13 PM Dotzero wrote:
> My understanding when the DMARCbis effort was spun up was that we were
> trying to move it to Standard Track. Is this still the goal? A number of
> experimental things are currently being included. This would seem to
> preclude DMARC being on
My understanding when the DMARCbis effort was spun up was that we were
trying to move it to Standard Track. Is this still the goal? A number of
experimental things are currently being included. This would seem to
preclude DMARC being on Standard Track.
If the experimental items being discussed
