On Sat 04/Dec/2021 23:02:50 +0100 Seth Blank wrote:
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 10:00 AM John Levine wrote:
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
This was reported but not sent to the WG. I believe the right disposition
is "Hold for Document Update". Does anyone want to argue for "Rejected
As discussion after I had filed this makes clear, my proposed solution isn't a
great one. Since we're well on our way towards removing PSL use from the DMARC
revision, I don't think it matters a lot whether we reject it or hold for
document update and mark it resolved when the new revision is f
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 10:00 AM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >This was reported but not sent to the WG. I believe the right disposition
> >is "Hold for Document Update". Does anyone want to argue for "Rejected"
> or
> >"Verified"?
>
> Rej
I must agree with Mr Levine on this.
tim
On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 1:00 PM John Levine wrote:
> It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
> >-=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> >This was reported but not sent to the WG. I believe the right disposition
> >is "Hold for Document Update". Does anyone want to argue
It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy said:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>This was reported but not sent to the WG. I believe the right disposition
>is "Hold for Document Update". Does anyone want to argue for "Rejected" or
>"Verified"?
Reject it. Whether you choose to believe the non-ICANN part of the PSL i
This was reported but not sent to the WG. I believe the right disposition
is "Hold for Document Update". Does anyone want to argue for "Rejected" or
"Verified"?
-MSK
-- Forwarded message -
From: RFC Errata System
Date: Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 4:31 PM
Subject: [Technical Errata Repo
